Talk:Global cooling/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Hansard

Not so long ago I was reading some blog or other and encountered a claim by the science journalist Nigel Calder that there was a global cooling consensus in the 1970s, I had a good rummage around in Hansard, the record of the British House of Commons, to see if I could find it mentioned. Well I did find something. Here in December 1974 a Mr Stoddard, a member of the Parliamentary Labour party representing Swindon, asked about ice ages, and it was answered by Brynmor John, also a Labour MP, in his capacity as a junior Defence minister in Harold Wilson’s government. The Meteorological Office is part of the Ministry of Defence.

Brynmore John mentions a documentary shown a couple of weeks previously, called "The Weather Machine", which advanced the notion that a new ice age might be imminent. He gave it short shrift. The book accompanying that documentary, I was surprised to find, was written by none other than Nigel Calder. And so it goes.

And that was the nearest thing I could find to anything supporting the notion that in the seventies (and I remember, I was there) we were all concerned (and by "we" I mean the scientific community, not the gullible watchers of Mr Calder's documentary) about global cooling. But this claim keeps surfacing again and again, almost as surely as the claim that we didn't go to the moon. --TS 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't suppose you know how BJ answered, do you? Could be interesting William M. Connolley (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's on the Hansard site at the link above, which I repeat here for your convenience. In a nutshell: Her Majesty's Government does not anticipate the imminent return of glaciers to the Home Counties. --TS 14:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A Possible Source

Recently (while I was hunting for information about dinosaurs), one of my classmates showed me this:

• Link (Chinese)

In case you don't know Chinese, the Main Idea of the article is that:

1. Our present Interglacial period is about to end.
2. The new ice age could start as fast as 2012.
3. The American Midwest could have temperatures below freezing. The most likely temperature range is not written about, but it does state that the coldest it could get to −30°C (which is, in comparison, about the temperature of the North Pole in winter now.)
4. Meanwhile, as the article was written, nominally hot places like Bangkok (which is in a tropical band) could drop to 15°C (Which is roughly today's British Summer.)

It does say something about global warming, and it assumes that the process is entirely negated.

Now, I cannot be absolutely sure whether or not it's a reliable source, (and it probably isn't!) but I think it would be interesting to note here.

If anyone could verify the reliability of this, please drop me a line in either my talk page, or here.

Ernest lk lam (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A Yahoo news article, Chinese or not, is not a reliable source for any scientific topic. If there is a peer-reviewed journal article backing this, it might be relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on now, Stephan, be honest here. Even being published in a peer-reviewed journal is no longer sufficient for inclusion. Consider anything published in Energy and Environment. Those articles are peer-reviewed but you know you won't allow them. Right? So they must be published in a peer-reviewed journal that is on the "approved" list (which is, of course, not articulated anywhere). So, in effect, your response should be understood to mean "If there is a peer-reviewed journal article backing this [from a journal that you and others will accept], it might be relevant." --GoRight (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about properly peer-reviewed scientific publications, not mock-publications like E&E. Just pretending to go through the motions does not help. See WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you should say that, no? And who gets to judge what counts as "properly peer-reviewed"? --GoRight (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, journals that are indexed in the ISI Web of Science. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well this is at least an objective definition that people can work with. Can we make this the official standard and list it at the top of the page on AGW related articles? --GoRight (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's already in WP:RS: The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. If a journal isn't listed in the index at all then its number of scholarly citations will be zero. See also Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Which_science_journals_are_reputable.3F, which does not have the force of policy but provides useful guidance. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! The American Midwest already gets below -30°C, parts of it on a regular basis. Guess the end is coming, so I'd better call those venture capitalists about glacier sno-cones. :) Awickert (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Why do you object to linking to a list of news articles related to global cooling in 2008? The fact that it is a blog is irrelevant since the value is in the list of secondary sources provided. WMC added a similar link back in 21:43, 21 June 2006 which you appear to have now removed. I find the timing of that to be rather suspicious, and amazingly fortuitous for you at this particular juncture. I note that we still have a link to a personal website in the list. Is this person an acknowledged expert on global cooling? If so please point to where he is so acknowledged.

Even so, I have no particular reason to care if those other links remain. In fact I would encourage them to be included since the lead of this article makes it clear that the subject is as more about the media reporting of the topic than it is about the actual science. The news articles referenced at the two links you have removed are clearly applicable to the subject at hand.

As for Boris' reference to links which are normally to be avoided, the key word there is normally. The link being provided is to a group blog not just someone's personal musings. How much editorial oversight does one require to compile a list of secondary news sources? Why are you all so terrified of such a benign external link? --GoRight (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your link (I presume you mean [1]) was removed because this isn't the global warming denialism article. The old stuff [2] is worth having cos its relevant to the topic that this article is actually about William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not my link, actually, although I guess I vouched for it when I restored it. So this article is not about Global Cooling? I thought it was. Are you saying it is only about Global Cooling in the 1970s? If so then perhaps the name of the page should reflect that. I don't particularly care much about this specific link, I just hate the double standard that is constantly applied here. It is clearly relevant to the general topic of Global Cooling. None of the titles of the articles included (indirectly) by the link even mention denialism, they are about Global Cooling, or at least that is what they claim to be about.

I note that the article also has sections on the 1980s and the 1990s. Just for future reference, at what point in time do articles which purport to be discussing the possibility of Global Cooling suddenly become some kind of code word articles for Global Warming Denialism? After 2000? After 2005? When? --GoRight (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be important to define: I always thought this article was about the 70's, but then there are the 80's and 90's questions. I don't particularly care for the blog article; I think the trend line which follows present-day variability closely but smooths over equal amplitude and frequency variability in the past, is totally bogus, but the definition of the scope of the article raises an important question. Awickert (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather the article cover just the 1970s public press global cooling "controversy." The parts on the 1980s and 1990s (Kuwaiti oil fires, DOD report, etc.) seem tangential and muddy the focus of the article. But I don't feel strongly enough about this to change it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But you do feel strongly about references to 2008? I assume so since you did bother to changes things there. If this article is to only be about the 1970s, should we not change the title of the article to reflect that? Otherwise where am I to create new content related to Global Cooling in 2008? Perhaps we should have a general Global Cooling page and simply summarize this page there and provide the appropriate full article links? --GoRight (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway

Now here's a reference that seems completely applicable and it is from a respected source with more experience than anyone at the IPCC. And the prediction is "based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather." Are you going to complain about using this as well?  :) I think that the fact the IPCC is contradicted by such a respectable source needs to be addressed somewhere. Where would you suggest? --GoRight (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

--> Old Farmer's Almanac -Atmoz (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

William

William, what is the idea behind this [3]? Is 2007 'today' rather than 'the beginning of the 21st century'? Or are you claiming that global warming was generally accepted before 2001? I'm pretty sure that that is not true, but if it is, surely you can provide a source and should also adjust the text to reflect that. Please don't just revert and thereby reintroduce a problem, try to cooperate instead. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

are you claiming that global warming was generally accepted before 2001 - yes, obviously. Please don't just fiddle William M. Connolley (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a source. Meanwhile, note that interestingly your revert moves the text further away from your view as the meaning of 'today' progresses. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Global warming was generally accepted since at least 1990, as per the IPCC First Assessment Report. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Stephan, that is certainly a milestone publication, but typically such reports are ahead of the field, so I'm not sure. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, typically they lag behind the general opinion of the field. After all, they are consensus reports based on the existing literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The literature in vast-advancing areas does not necessarily present a general opinion, but is more the opinion at the frontier (hopefuly an informed one which is not always the case). It can take several consensus reports to sway or even create a general opinion; I've seen that. But as always this can be solved, WP-wise, by being explicit in the text. I suggest that we write something like: "However, from 1990 onwards a series of assessment reports...". What do you think? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten the wrong idea on what the IPCC reports are. They assess the consensus in the scientific literature - not generate a consensus themselves. They do not reference the "opinion at the frontier" - but instead what the "current scientific opinion" is. Thats the reason that they are lagging behind the general opinion of the field. Your proposed text is reversing the causality. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Literature and general opinion are not the same thing. But I would think that my suggestion bypasses that issue. I am open to better suggestions though. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

General opinion is rather irrelevant here. Its the scientific opinion that is interesting - and that is found in the scientific literature. And no, as i said above - your suggestion is reversing causality. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how, as I deliberately specify no causality at all, but I'd like to hear your suggestion. Otherwise, the text will stay as is, i.e. leaving a significant gap in time. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. The text currently in the article stays as it is. Since your proposal doesn't seem to sway anyone here, thus having consensus against it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone interested in long, tedious and utterly pointless discussions is invited to view GvdB's talk page, where CHL patiently tries to explain reality. The rest of us can just ignore him William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do something constructive for a change. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

2000s

Who is going to add a 2000s section either under "More recent climate cooling predictions" or "Present level of knowledge" reflecting this decades global cooling (2000-2009) ? Here is the British Met. offices data documenting this cooling 1998-2009, check the graphic representation of this cooling (negative temperate delta since 1998). http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html

Also here is another source that details this cooling. Hmmmmm how can this cooling be happening while we have had a linear increase in CO2 during this time period (AGC) ?? http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

CO2 linear increase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.196 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear 206.172.0.196 above, I attempted to add a 2000s section but the Wiki AGW Newspeak police group of William M. Connolley, Guido den Broeder plus others reverted all attempts at adding a 2000s section. They also erased all edit history for June 3rd, wow this is real Orwellian 1984ish stuff. I read in a blog that there is a group of Wiki censors that make sure only a pro-AGW POV is promoted on any article relateing remotely to climate warming and apparently cooling. Here is the entry I attempted to make.

Global cooling during the 2000s decade has been observed beginning around the year 1998 until today (2009). Global temperatures have dropped 0.3 or 0.4 degrees Celsius as per the British Met Office HADCRUT3 data source for this time period.This cooling is observed beginning since the 1998 La Nina and during this period of time CO2 levels have increased linearly as tracked by Mauna Loa Observatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.231.238 (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that discusses this fluctuation as "global cooling" and we can start talking. It might also be useful if you actually read the BBC article, which is quite decent for the popular press. As for on-wiki reading, WP:OR and WP:SYN would be a good idea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

group of William M. Connolley, Guido den Broeder - this is really very very funny, but nonetheless I'm obliged to say that, whilst I'm grateful you're using the talk page, you can't possibly expect me to talk to you if you're using langauge like that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ya, I looked at the graph and instead of cooling, it looks more like an upside-down "U" with warming roughly '98 to '04, a plateau, and cooling from around '06-ish onwards. It's also the same amplitude and frequency as previous up-downs. Which is good, really. If it continues for another number of years on its downward trend, we know something is going on. If it goes back on the upswing soon, it falls in line with the rest of the ups and downs. Awickert (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with the addition that the IP editor wishes is that it is a combination of Original Research and Original Synthesis, neither of which are permitted on Wikipedia.

It is Original Research because it involves interpretation of a graph by the IP editor. This is a process of selectively extracting figures from the graph. It says that global temps have fallen 1998-Present, therefore this is evidence of global cooling. If selective interpretation of graphs is to be permitted then we can equally say that global temps have risen 2000-Present, therefore this is evidence of global warming. Or for practically any other year. Why did the IP editor choose 1998 as a starting point for their original analysis? Because it suited the conclusion desired. See what's possible when you cherry pick data?

It is equally a case of Original synthesis because the IP editor is combining data from two separate sources in order to advance a position. i.e. A + B therefore C. A is the cherry picked data described above. B is the separate data on CO2 emissions. Therefore C is the implied conclusion that increased CO2 emissions does not correlate with temperatures. Wikipedia policy is that you, the IP editor, are not allowed to assemble this argument. It has to be done somewhere else, by a reliable source. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To Users Awickert and Escape Orbit your ignorance is showing, British Met Office HADCRUT3 data was cherry picked because it is the definitive source of IPCC data for global temperatures. The British Met Office web site also has a rather humorous explanation as to why even though the graph shows global temperatures dropping for a decade we should not consider global temperatures to be dropping !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.137.68 (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are misconstruing what I said. Deliberately I think. It is cherry-picking not because of the source of the data , but because of the selected sub-set of years that best 'prove' the argument wanted. Why else pick 1998 as a starting point? The graph itself doesn't select 1998 as a significant year, so why not use 1990? Why not 2000? You also have not addressed the fact that combining two sets of separate data in this manner it is Original synthesis, as I explain above. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am talking about data points, you are talking about a data source. Awickert (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Auto-archive

Would someone skilled in these things set up the auto-archiving? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The BBC finally admits the truth - will Wikipedia?

(That is what is known as a rhetorical question.) What happened to global warming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.236.76 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not a good enough source to justify adding anything to the article. Frankly, it's a pretty bad one - it assumes a brief fluctuation in global temperatures disproves the long-term trend of gradual warming. While it's true that no recent year has been hotter than 1998, the last 10 years have been on average the hottest decade on record. The claim that recent lower temperatures mean global warming isn't happening was debunked by the Associated Press here: [4]. Robofish (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad link, do you have a better one?--SPhilbrickT 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this also the BBC "admitting the truth"? This year 'in top five warmest' --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course the BBC is not a good enough resource to justify changing this article in any way. We must dogmatically continue our reliance on the fact of global warming while turning a blind eye (or two) from all of our trusted global warming scientists who've been falsifying and destroying records, shunning peers who look at the actual scientific data and conclude that global warming is not true, and brazenly writing each other about all their "sins". Bah...this article about the global cooling scare from the 1970s was obviously written (or at least very heavily edited) by one of them thar lyin', cheatin', no good global warmin' scientists. Global warming...what a bunch o' bunk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.143.217 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1980 Cosmos series with Carl Sagan

I've watched the episode referred to in this section (Heaven & Hell, Episode 4). The current piece does not reflect what Carl Sagan says. I quote:

"The bright sandy surface and dusty atmosphere of Mars reflect enough sunlight back to space to cool the planet - freezing out all its water, locking it in a perpetual ice age. Human activities brighten our landscape and our atmosphere. Might this ultimately make an ice age here? At the same time we are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide - increasing the greenhouse effect. The earth need not resemble Venus too closely to become barren and lifeless. It might not take much to destabilize the earth's climate, to make this heaven - our only home in the cosmos - into a kind of hell."

It is obvious that he is not talking about climate engineering - but the possible climate changes that might effect the Earth - from his perspective in 1979. Changes are needed. Starviking (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I looked over the segment in the article, and it seems like a reasonably fair representation of your quote. But then I've never seen Cosmos and (blashphemy, I known) the book has been lingering in my bedside pile for two years or so. Any particular thing you would like to change?

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, within the context of his actual quote it seem to me that the whole section should be just removed. Sagan isn't talking about global cooling in the modern sense - just contrasting between the cooling effect of albedo changes on Mars and the greenhouse effect on Venus.Starviking (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to me deleting the Sagan section?Starviking (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Cut madeStarviking (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed the discussion but the removal seems like the only thing to do. Sagan was not promoting either the notion of catastrophic cooling and an imminent ice age, or the notion of a runaway greenhouse effect, but highlighting the sensistivity of the climate to changes in albedo and release of greenhouse gases. This reference is as out-of-place here as it would be on global warming. --TS 14:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Global Cooling

Whats up with the recent global cooling? [5] Should this merit a mention or is this junk science? Bobchen (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's on FoxNews, so its safe to ignore. For some related discussion, see above, in the section strangely enough called "Hawaii Reporter". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephen, Did you really say that? Translation: Because it was mentioned by a certain set of persons it can't be legitimate. Just Google "NASA cooling", then ask yourself whether your dismissal was appropriate. What a waste of space on this site--although you could argue that my response is an equal waste of space:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anotherviewkhh (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he did really say that. But your "translation" is wrong. The reason its dismissed is because it is not provided in a scientific venue. However much one might like FoxNews... it isn't a scientific media, and thus not a reliable source to such claims. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Try googling russian prediction global cooling. You'll find stuff like this that hopefully won't be so prejudicially dismissed. TMLutas (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.105.117 (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If by 2009 temperatures have failed to stop dropping, then we will know that this is not simply a result of the hurricane cycle. In that case, it may represent a permanent change and will therefore warrent a note. In any case, a theory doesn't have to be popular to have merit. Rarensu (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.76.243 (talk)

Well, here we are in December 2009. Time's passed and we're still not seeing the global warming reality that the models all promised. TMLutas (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get your deadline from? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is Stupid, is'nt there a single climate warming expert that can tell how long a cooling trend must be before we can call it Global Cooling 10, 12, 14, 16 years, or must the cooling period always be 1 or more years longer than the current cooling period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.236.53 (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The timescale to measure climate over is ~30 years - so yes there are several climate experts who will disagree with you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Lower Atmosphere 30 year averaged/smoothed temperatures reveal an approximate 0.2 degree C anomaly and what is the margin of error ? Has there really even been any significant 30 year warming ?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/november-2009-uah-global-temperature-update-0-50-deg-c/

206.47.249.252 (talk) Sun Spot —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

Since you are quoting Spencer, i'll reply with the Sat/Radiosonde record: RSS sees 0.153°K per decade[6], UAH sees 0.13°K per decade.[7] over the last ~30 years. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"no, of course" not sufficient reason for a revert.

I don't mind getting reverted if I'm wrong. I expect a minimum courtesy of a reason. This is not a reason.

17:05, 4 December 2009 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (32,495 bytes) (rv: no. of course.) (undo)

The underlying edit did two fairly uncontroversial things. It made explicit that the IPCC statement was in 2001. It also included a statement supportive of the idea that the 1970s concerns aren't what's going on now, that the current pause is at a higher level than the temps which raised concern in the 1970s.

I'm ok with an argument. I'm ok with hashing out some sort of improvement that has zero of my proposed texts in. What I think is unacceptable is reflexive reverts with no alternatives given, no discussion other than "no". TMLutas (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As a sidenote, the edit was reverted again, this time with something that I can work with. I'm going through the editor's talk page. TMLutas (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It comes up fairly often. If you haven't read it before, I have. Please propose controversial changes here before adding them to the article William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I do propose controversial edits in talk prior. Your private opinion of what is controversial is not law. This is why we're all supposed to provide reasons why we do things including revert. Please follow normal Wikipedia convention in future.

It's astonishing how much effort has been expended in this article to keep out the most minor and noncontroversial mention of a reality, that just as people talked about global cooling in the mid-70s they're also talking about it today. I understand what's behind it and I can respect the current of opinion so long as it stays within the rules. Sometimes it doesn't. TMLutas (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of terminology of "Global cooling"

The article as written states: "The term "global cooling" did not become attached to concerns about an impending glacial period until after the term "global warming" was popularized." Since the famous Time magazine article of 1974 uses the term, it would seem to me that the term "global cooling" significantly predates "global warming," though I am eager to be corrected. Wbehun (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Its off in the archives somewhere. Did you check? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact tag in the article says "Dec 2007", so that's only two years of archives to check. If it's already been two years though, if no one comes with a source now, it had better be removed per policy.Gerrard Winstanley (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

proposed 2000s section

Here is proposed text to support a new 2000s section (current numbering would be section 4.3). The ref needs improvement but I'm dashing this off in order to get at least something up.

2000s

The 1998 super el-nino temperature peaks not being exceeded according to some global warming measures, popular press speculation arose that global warming had ceased and that a pause or global cooling was starting. A 2009 peer reviewed paper Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change asserts that the globe is cooling and will be cooling for the next 50 years. Cosmic rays let in by the ozone hole in the Antarctic played a significant role in the preceding global warming and the closing of the hole is reversing the temperature effects.

---

I believe that this can form the nucleus of a decent section on the present day global cooling phenomenon. TMLutas (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

THat paper is (a) too new and (b) too rubbish William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Same paper as this, which was responded to here. Nothing new. -Atmoz (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC - Sorry, there's no wiki criteria justifying exclusion on the grounds of "too rubbish", perhaps WP:OR? The 1970s research was obviously proven wrong by time. Should we be removing that too? How Orwellian. I'm unfamiliar with the "too new" criteria for accepting reliable sources. Care to cite the rule or guideline where there's a time limit only after which a paper can be cited on Wikipedia? TMLutas (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Science papers that have just come out, are generally not acceptable because they haven't had time to "simmer" (give an impact), or gain responses. In this case i think it is even more obvious - the paper is published in a somewhat obscure journal, and makes some rather "interesting" claims, such as that CR drives Ozone depletion in combination with Halogens (which if correct may require the rethinking of a nobel price?). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for a guideline that applies, preferably one that's got actual numbers attached for how long an article embargo should be. If you have actual improvements to the text, feel free to propose them. Your silence on any matter that would actually improve the text is not encouraging. State what text you want. And if you want to assert that there is no reliable source talking about global cooling, put that down as well. I'm just asking for honesty here. TMLutas (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz - Sorry the responded to here article is behind an authorization wall. I can't comment on it. Thank you for bringing up the 2nd peer reviewed paper. You're actually improving the text, congrats. I wish more AGW people did that. I'm puzzled though. I don't recall anybody ever saying that even in the 1970s that global cooling was unchallenged scientific consensus. Just because a paper is answered does not mean that the original paper is wrong nor that it shouldn't be included in the global cooling page. It is not how we're treating the earlier decades. We should be treating all decades the same way.

New text to be inserted replacing "A 2009 peer reviewed paper":

---

A 2001 peer reviewed paper asserted the globe is cooling due to the influence of cosmic rays[8]. A 2009 paper

---

Keep the improvements coming. TMLutas (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This proposed text is dishonest. First of all, the actual title of the link target ("Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming") is changed to something with a completely different meaning ("Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change"). Second, insciences.org is not a peer reviewed journal. That is not a link to peer reviewed research, it is a link to a piece of journalism. Bertport (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, it's not just a good idea, it's a guideline.

Titles were cut and pasted from the underlying peer reviewed study. Using journalistic sources has caused great controversy in the past and I'm interested in actual text making it into the article. Propose a better title, propose a better link if you don't like it. Stop whining about something that is entirely in your power to correct. There have been two peer reviewed papers at the very least alleging global cooling. I saw one in 2009 and Atmoz contributed the other from 2001. I don't care what text goes up as a starter. I care about the omission of any mention of global cooling in the presence of numerous journalistic references (that keep getting shot down) and now I discover with the existence of a paper from 2001 that would have justified the section long ago. This omission makes for a poor article and justifies a quality downgrade. TMLutas (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You will need to explain how you get from the paper's content to "asserted the globe is cooling" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read the link? The author is quoted saying it. Why should i not believe him? TMLutas (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as i can see - none of those papers are about "global cooling" (or warming). Can you explain how and where the "global cooling" part is? Its about Ozone loss in the Antarctic and a possible connection with cosmic ray flux. The paper is here --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your confusion. You have the wrong paper. It was published on December 3, not March 19. Please read the links more carefully. I'm taking Atmoz's word for the 2001 paper. Perhaps you should take that one up with him. TMLutas (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is the same data/hypothesis. And it is still only Antarctica as far as i can tell. Can you please cite the section in the paper the states something about global warming/cooling? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you've already gotten the paper wrong once, could you put a link up to what you're concerned about so I can be sure we're talking about the same paper? I'm willing to work with you but I really don't feel like doing a "who's on first" routine. Since the link I did put up has the author of the paper quoted as saying it's talking about global cooling, I'm not quite sure what you're point is. Are you asserting you know better than the author (in which case WP:OR applies) or that the quote in the press release was inaccurate? TMLutas (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Science-by-press-release is notorious for hyping up results of pedestrian studies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

SBHB - Do you have an actual objection to the proposed text or is there some sort of philosophical objection you're alluding to? I would like to get you on record as to what you actually want. It isn't just destructive snark, is it? As I've demonstrated with Atmoz's contribution, I'm more than willing to take actual criticism into account and improve proposed text. your part is just to provide actual constructive criticism that can be used to improve the article. TMLutas (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

KDP - See below. TMLutas (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So you haven't actually read the papers? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out whether you have read the paper I referred to. The link to the paper abstract is provided at the bottom of the link I put up. I provided a reference to one paper, you came back and protested about a different paper. If you can't be bothered to read what I wrote, I'm under no obligation to dance to your tune. To recap, I linked to a release discussing a Dec 3 paper and you came back protesting that a March 19 paper wasn't relevant. After that, on this issue, you really do bear the burden of proof that you're paying attention. I'm bending over backwards here already because I'm giving in for the moment on the journalistic sources kerfuffle.

You seem to be concerned that this is "science by press release". I'm not entirely sure what the guidelines are in these cases, much less whether they would apply in this case. Could you lay out what the grounds are for exclusion that do not fall under WP:OR on your part? Don't be coy or limit yourself to FUD, please lay out your actual objections that fall within the policies of Wikipedia. If you do not, after a decent interval (perhaps a couple of weeks), we really should publish anyway because nobody should have a veto right on edits that have no policy/guideline justification to reject. TMLutas (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You have not referred us to a peer reviewed paper - you have referred us to a piece of journalism, which purports to summarize the article. A google search shows that there are a few people trying to make hay out of this report. If we are going to mention this, we'd better say something more precise, like "a 2009 article in Physics Reports has been described [link] as saying that there has been global cooling since 2002, and predicting further cooling for the next fifty years."Bertport (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read the linked article. It has a link to the paper at the bottom. If you would like to provide a better link, feel free to improve on the proposed text. I've already demonstrated that I don't mind that at all. I don't give a hoot about who is trying to make hay out of this report. It's irrelevant to the question of whether the proposed section on global cooling assertions in the present decade should include the paper. If you have an actual objection, lay it out and let's improve the text. Is your objection that Wikipedia should not contain links to press releases? How about abstracts? How about, how about, how about? You see the problem? Until you actually object to something, I'm left trying to guess your mind. That guessing game is distinctly unhelpful. You are, unfortunately, in the sizeable majority that so far is not suggesting improvements and not quite willing to say that the section should not exist at all. Please make your actual position clear of what you want. That's a general request, btw. If you don't want a section at all, say so. If you do want a section but think my proposed text blows chunks, that's fine too, if you suggest an improvement. All viewpoints welcome in the search for NPOV but let's get a text together. TMLutas (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You have completely mischaracterized my comment. I called out specific differences between your proposal and the source upon which you based it; then I suggested a more acceptable way of bringing the subject into the WP Global cooling article. Sorry, I'm not going to shell out $31 to read the pdf. We can base whatever text we write on the freely available material. And incidentally, I don't consider the "making hay" an objection - on the contrary, I was pointing out that the report has some notability, and is thus a consideration in favor of mentioning the report in the WP article. Bertport (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading your preceding comment, I see that I *was* unfair. I apologize and plead stupidity and skimming too fast. To make it up, I'll accept your text as a starter instead. Fair enough? The 2001 paper that Atmoz brought up still needs to be put in as well. Do you have an opinion on that one? TMLutas (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you please quote the section in the paper that is referring to prediction of global cooling? And can you send me a copy of the paper? --Kim D. Petersen

Since it's very early I just want to make sure that I understand that you've been saying that the paper does not assert global cooling but you haven't read it and you'd like me to violate copyright and send you a copy. Or are you asking me to shell out $31 for your own copy out of my personal finances? I don't have a polite response to either suggestion beyond a simple no, I'm not going to assist in your original research. TMLutas (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, what do you think about using something like the above "a 2009 article in Physics Reports has been described [link] as saying that there has been global cooling since 2002, and predicting further cooling for the next fifty years" based on the source that is freely available? Bertport (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it even remotely is notable enough to merit inclusion. And i also doubt that the paper says this (but am willing to be convinced). As said above "science per press-release" is a faulty process. The 2001 paper is certainly fringy - and i'm rather willing to bet that this one is as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindented quite a lot here)

Oh give me a break, not notable enough, it's peer reviewed and coming out of a reputable university. You've made a decision on what it's saying in contravention to the openly available abstract and press release when you've admitted that you haven't read the paper. You're assuming that there's a lie in the stuff that is not behind a pay wall but have no evidence for that position that you are willing to present. Please present your evidence, if you actually have any, that is not WP:OR. So far, you haven't even risen to that level, just shown prejudice. TMLutas (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Every month there are probably 50-100 climate related papers that are "peer reviewed and coming out of a reputable university." Shall we include all of them? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If there were 50 papers relative to a page, it would be proper to use a selection of recent ones to illustrate the larger points of the specific page under discussion, The specific page here is global cooling and what's under discussion is a paper asserting global cooling. We don't have so many existing recent references that we're overcrowded with them. We're actually at the stage where people have been asserting with a straight face that nobody in WP:RS land has talked about global cooling in a modern context this decade. In short, your concern does not apply yet. When we get past, say 5 papers asserting global cooling, we should start picking and choosing among the best. Do you have 4 others you'd like to drop into the hopper so that we can pick the best? Or do you believe that we're under that number and thus your concern of too many papers isn't applicable at the present time? TMLutas (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Once there is an impact factor of this paper (and someone actually read it) we might consider including it. For now it is very much too new. And i still doubt that it actually contains anything about "global cooling" [based upon reading the other papers] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, what policy, rule or guideline mentions "impact factor" as a criteria for inclusion in an article? I've also had a request for the guideline, rule, or policy that outlines what "too new" means since you used it yesterday. No answer from you. Could anyone provide it or shall I just mark it down as a private standard that you're trying to impose on this page? As for your assertion that you haven't read it, that's your problem. Your conclusions about the worthlessness of a paper you say you haven't read are not worth much IMO. At least I have an author quote in the open Internet to hang my hat on. What's your evidence for your assertion? TMLutas (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Have you read the paper? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no intention of getting into WP:OR over the meaning of the paper. I've no intention of debating the includability of texts that don't seem to have its full text outside of a pay wall, mostly because I've seen how that naturally shades into accusations of bad faith and I'm really uninterested in escalating matters into ugly vote territory. Instead I just want to improve the text. I'm very carefully limiting my comments to WP:RS on the public Internet. That's what I'm supposed to do in editing Wikipedia. So is everybody else. I'm simply not going to open up the OR can of worms when I've got a clear quote from WP:RS on the open Internet alleging that global cooling started about 2002 and should go on for about 50 years. Your question, like a few of mine above, is just going to remain unanswered. Hopefully by this explanation, I've differentiated myself from WMC and KDP who seem to be ready to impose private criteria for edits that have no basis in rule, guideline, or policy. TMLutas (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A simple "no, I haven't read the paper" would have been simpler William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A simple cooperation to actually improve the text would be simpler still, yet you refuse to do so. You were the first to mention, on the 22nd the criteria that a paper had to have an (unspecified) age before it could be included in your opinion. You have refused to justify your position for five days now by reference to some policy, rule, or guideline. I have not put words in your mouth. I ask that you do not put words in mine. It is rude.

I proposed an edit. You bring objections unjustified by the rules of the project (if I'm wrong, I'd still welcome a reference). You haven't said that you do not think a section is justified at all. You also refuse to provide alternative texts to forward the discussion. Without doing one or the other, I cannot see any alternative but to view this line of action as obstructionist. Please propose an alternate text that satisfies your objections or openly declare that you don't want the section at all and state your reasons for it, reasons that should be consistent with the normal policies, guidelines, and procedures of this project. What I have or have not read is irrelevant to your and KDP's obstructionism and I will not be drawn off of this point. I've clearly stated that I don't care so much what the text says but that I want some accurate description of this theory as it's been advocated in the past decade. I think it's rather poor that we're closing out the 'oughts maintaining the fiction that nobody believes in or has argued for an upcoming period of global cooling. I've been accommodating to every constructive objection. Lay out yours and you'll find out that I'll be as accommodating of it as I have the rest. TMLutas (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but my "obstructionism" comes from having read the abstract and earlier papers. Based on this i have reasonable doubts as to whether this particular paper says anything about "global cooling" (or warming). It is still a paper on Ozone and the Antarctic, not about the globe. And it is so new, that it has had absolutely no impact in the scientific view on this subject. (not to mention that the previous papers seem to have been either ignored, or have been shot down by comments). Interesting - but has little to no value in a broader aspect (ie. undue weight). Science by press-release is (as said earlier) a fallacy. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It is unreasonable for you to ding a paper you say you have not read. It is not unreasonable to take a peer reviewed paper's author at his quoted word even absent the paper's non-paywalled availability. Your doubts are unweighed by evidence in this particular case. Be reasonable and find something more than a gut instinct or hunch.

You cite WP:WEIGHT yet do not follow its recommendations that the cure is to mention the paper and give proper weight. This is also unreasonable. In an article that discusses press coverage in the 1970s, it is also unreasonable to hold to a "peer reviewed", "science only" standard for the 2000s. It is reasonable that different decades be covered by the same standard. Complaining of "science by press release" *for this article*, with its unusual construction, is unreasonable.

Please stop being unreasonable. I'm open to *additional* text to cure undue weighting. I'm open to *additional* information on more relevant sources. I absolutely welcome all perspectives on this text so long as they follow the actual relevant policies, rules, and guidelines. What I reject is private interpretations that lead to the orwellian result of zero coverage of real support for a minority view, that the globe is cooling. If you actually followed the guideline you cite, you would find me most accommodating. Please do so. TMLutas (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still "in press" and listed as an uncorrected ms. I don't think we use sources like that, especially for controversial claims. Guettarda (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's the start of a reasonable sounding standard. It's entirely negative though. If it were paired with a positive statement of an objective standard at which point the paper could be used, we might actually make progress. I would like that. TMLutas (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also what the 87-page ms says about cooling is interestingly brief:

If the above observation is confirmed, then we expect to observe a continued decrease in global surface temperature—“global cooling”. That is, global warming observed in the late 20th century may be reversed with the coming decades. Indeed, global cooling may have started since 2002, based on the observed data shown in Figs. 21 and 22. This could be very important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. It certainly deserves for further examinations and studies. (p. 45)

It's also worth noting that the entire section on climate change is based on one figure (purely correlational) and <3 pages (double-spaced) - in an 87-page ms. Guettarda (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the quoted passage, Guettarda. So, in fact, the paper does not say that there has been global cooling since 2002, or predict further cooling for the next fifty years. It says there may have been and may be. Bertport (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the sort of career pressure we now know is being exerted behind the scenes, I would be shocked if a first paper wouldn't hedge like crazy. It's still a paper that's observed cooling with a mechanism different than the sort of "ice age talk" that characterizes the 1970s scare. It should still go in if we can achieve some sort of reasonable consensus, to be replaced by more solid papers as they come. TMLutas (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I also thank you for going out and fishing out the quote. I'd been hoping somebody else'd be interested. These sorts of things always work better when multiple people contribute. TMLutas (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

TML: you are obliged to read, or at least have a reasonable knowledge of, papers you wish to cite for contested material where there is doubt that your interpretation is correct. In this case your interpretation appears to be gleaned from press releases and a heavy desire to have what you say be true. This won't do William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If Guettarda's passage is correct, I don't understand the response of Bertport and William at all. The passage does say "we expect to observe a continued decrease in global surface temperature." The general discussion on this talk page above disturbs me. Is there anything within the MoS which allows editors to cherry pick which refereed articles are considered "good" and which are considered "bad"? Or wouldn't that kind of claim be considered original research? I think TMLutas has struck on an important wikipedia-related point here. What would really be the crime of adding the one proposed line in there, if it references that quote from this 2009, for that matter the 2001, paper? Peer reviewed articles within scientific journals constantly refute each other, which makes you wonder why wikipedia considers them reliable sources in the first place. If it's not in MoS, perhaps wikipedia should not allow the inclusion of peer reviewed journal articles at all, because of this type of a common conflict. Very curious. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What on Earth does the MoS have to do in this discussion? MoS is style not content. The relevant policy here is weight. And that does require us to consider impact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if you followed the policy you quote. The proper solution for a weight violation is to add text that lays out the majority opinion so there is no confusion how minority the minority opinion is. I await your proposed text. So far I haven't spoken out against *any* of the proposed revisions. What's keeping you from following the policy? I'm not fighting it. Stop knocking down straw men. TMLutas (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it's conjecture. Because they aren't saying "the globe is cooling and will be cooling", they say that if they're correct, then "global warming ... may be reversed". Not that there has been cooling. Not that there will be cooling. But that they found something that's worth looking at.

They found cooling worth looking at that they think has been happening since 2002. It's the old when does weather turn into climate question. This is as conjectural as Einstein was when he laid out tests that would disprove relativity. The relevant phrase is 'we expect to observe a continued decrease in global surface temperature—“global cooling”' with hedges appropriate around that central statement for career protection given the current environment. TMLutas (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole idea that CFCs have driven recent warming isn't the central point of their paper - it's an add-on. It's a "look at these graphs together" kind of thing. And then they point out that if that observation is correct, then as CFC levels fall, temperatures will fall. Not "global cooling", but rather a reversal of recent warming. So (a) it's not "global cooling", as per this article, (b) it's not really one of their findings, but a possible implication that it might be worth looking at, and (c) it's most certainly not what TML proposed we add to the article. Guettarda (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Meteorology as a whole is an inexact science, and forecasting less so. I don't know what meteorologist says definitively that anything WILL happen, especially when dealing with a forecast out any length of time. The most you can say that is an event seems probable. And since we're dealing within wikipedia, the Manual of Style has a place in this discussion if people are not equating "global cooling since 2002" as relevant to the global cooling article. That just seems like common sense to me, and the lead to this article could always be tweaked to consider more than just the 1970's. One line of prose, which it seems like from the above discussion is all that people will be willing to accept as a compromise, can't be considered undue weight considering the length of this article, can it? Thegreatdr (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're proposing. The article isn't about global cooling. Why would you want to add something from it to this article? Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The peer-reviewed article could be concentrated on tropical cyclogenesis and its effect on sea lion mating, but that wouldn't change the fact that it did mention global cooling, and that it passed peer review. Since the article talks about global cooling, albeit briefly, and this article talks about global cooling, what would be the problem (from a wikipedia standpoint) with including a line of text about it into this article and using that paper as a source? One line wouldn't constitute undue weight. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would take issue with you denying the plain meaning of the words you yourself quoted. If somebody uses the words "global cooling" then it is unreasonable to think that they do not mean global cooling. Whether they are an add on or central to the paper, if it's real, then it's real. Since a significant chunk of this page is devoted to explaining past bad science then for this page even if it *isn't* real, it should still be included as another data point on the continuing mistaken tendency to look for global cooling in a warming world. TMLutas (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, WMC. I do have reasonable knowledge about what I'm proposing. I don't know about yours, you haven't said anything. I'll take your knowledge level on faith as we all should do unless one explicitly is confessing ignorance. KDP explicitly says he hasn't read the paper but maintains that his own professed ignorance would be no bar to dinging a paper and bearing no requirement to provide evidence. Funny you haven't talked to him about the subject. In any case your point is mooted by Guettarda's quote, which knocks down the fantasy that this paper doesn't mention global warming at all. It's a tentative first paper announcing something novel in a field where influential scientists have a blackballing operation that's been recently, publicly exposed. TMLutas (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I dare say "reasonable knowledge about" would include having actually read the source. If you'd actually read the source, you would not have proposed the inaccurate sentence with which you led off this discussion.

In any case, another little problem that makes this source pretty hard to take seriously is the statistically invalid notion of "cooling since 2002". Statisticians reject global cooling. Bertport (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not able to view that link. Can you double check the web address? Thegreatdr (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Try this one.[9] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bertport - After the multi-year noise about using only peer reviewed sources, you didn't really try to debunk a peer reviewed paper with an analysis for hire by the AP, did you? I could pop in a dozen non-peer reviewed sources of the caliber you cited or better to fill out the section and we would, once again, go down the same dead end of multiple reverts and rejectionism that's struck attempts to do so in the past. So no, the AGW side doesn't get to play both sides, using non-peer reviewed sources when convenient and peer review requirements when convenient. In the whole ridiculous, sprawling mess that this section proposal has turned into, do you really want to add this particular cherry on top?

I'm not proposing to use that source in the article, merely referring to a public statistical analysis which points out what is already obvious to us anyway, merely by looking at the global temperatures graph at Global warming.Bertport (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So a statistical analysis using NOAA data invalidates a peer reviewed article published later that measured its own and disagrees with NOAA. I think you're going to have to use diagrams to explain how this one works. Seriously, I've been asking literally for years how long a cooling trend has to be before the AGW crowd will admit that it's not just a blip. My own opinion is that if you've got a 5 year trend, it's worth mentioning in a "if trends continue, this could be something interesting" sort of way but opinions vary widely and I'm not wedded to my approach. Picking one data set over another as you're implicitly proposing is WP:OR in my opinion. TMLutas (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

TML, what do you think about Talk:Global warming/FAQ Q3? As for diagrams, I referred you to one, which I think is sufficient.Bertport (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a nice fellow out on the Internet who was doing monthly graphs on this. Most recent I found showed a flat cooling trend going back to 2/1997. A3 needs to be updated because it has not been correct for some time. If the calculation were run against current data I wouldn't be surprised to see the flat/cooling trend extend back to 1996 by this point. The larger point about cherry picking is worth noting so long as it's done in an accurate way. The chances of such an edit getting through no matter what the reality of the situation are so small that I will simply not bother. Yay, another victory for the AGW page campers. If you want to make some sort of accurate FAQ for this page, I wouldn't stand in your way. If you want to stack a FAQ v. a peer reviewed paper, I'd suggest that you read WP:CIRCULAR for why this is a bad idea. It's not a 100% fit as you seem to be interested in excluding material rather than using it as a citation but the reasoning behind why it's a bad idea stays the same in either case. TMLutas (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You're also assuming bad faith editing on an edit I didn't defend in the least and isn't even the current proposal. Please stick to the current proposal, which if you look carefully is *yours*. If you really wish, do tell me what is wrong with the edit you proposed. I'll be more than happy to change it again.

I'm not making any assumptions about your sincerity. As far as I'm concerned, there is no current proposal, in light of the actual quoted passage from the original source. Go ahead and make a proposal if you want. Bertport (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please keep up, your proposal is timestamped 17:29, 24 December 2009. If you're withdrawing it, that's fine. I'm just asking you what I'm asking everybody, is it your opinion that there should be no section or do you have a proposal for appropriate text? TMLutas (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A final thought strikes me. Are you taking issue with Guettarda's extract which is what I'm currently working off of here as the best open available source for the relevant paper? TMLutas (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, why would I take issue with that?Bertport (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're not making much sense to me on this issue so I was guessing.

I've been interviewed by Seth a number of times, and he's a pleasant guy. A reporter who's been assigned the weather beat for many years now (at least 17). But TML is right. I checked out wikipedia's source policy again the other day to be sure. Newspaper stories are not original sources. They are secondary or tertiary sources. Peer reviewed articles are primary, as long as they are not published by a group promoting this research for its own ends, such as a ficticious example like The Center For Global Cooling Research. If people are worried that one line or paragraph on the cooling (or level) temperature trend since 2002 is going to cause undue weight, then wikipedia's answer is to expand the rest of the article so this is not a problem. It is not within wikipedia's interest to side on either side of a debate...merely present the facts as reported within peer review or university-published book sources. Since this is not a scientific consensus (at this time) it should not get more than a cursory mention in this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A number of editors toss around guidelines and rules without actually reading them and impose private interpretations of them. Thank you for going to the trouble of reading and thinking about the guideline. I wish more people did it. TMLutas (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

See also Talk:Global warming/FAQ Q22 regarding the use of newly published material.Bertport (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

After finding the less than up to date A3 in the same list, you'll pardon me if I insist on this FAQ being tied to some actual policy, rule, or guideline that is of more general applicability. A FAQ is neither a policy, rule, or a guideline. Beyond that, climate issues seem rife with private interpretation to me that would puzzle well established and respected editors who edit in other areas. Several months is also somewhat vague and indeterminate. So no, a FAQ page which isn't even read by everybody who edits on climate pages doesn't cut it with me. TMLutas (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(returning later) I was curious about the provenance of the FAQ Q22 you cited so I did a little look through the history. Q22 was added on 21:51, 30 December by User:Tony Sidaway and was added to once by User:Awickert on 22:18, 30 December. The FAQ is newer than the paper. In fact, it is newer than several of the assertions that there is such a policy in this thread. I've fact tagged it instead of deleting it in case somebody in the larger community can actually link it to such a policy. Hopefully that's fair enough. TMLutas (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(returning later again) Do you support A6 of the GW FAQ which recognizes that non-peer reviewed material is entirely legitimate? If so, there's quite a bit of material that could be in this proposed section. Such material has been strongly excluded in the past and in an effort to avoid going through the same arguments again, I've left it out this go around. The oughts section would be much larger if both A22 and A6 were both accepted as consensus. I'm willing to drop the 12/2009 paper in order to get the $10k bet, the solar scientist opinions, the BBC coverage, and all the rest that's been excluded in the past on the grounds that it wasn't peer reviewed. TMLutas (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I added FAQ question 22 because a lot of people didn't seem to appreciate the points it makes, which are all firmly based in Wikipedia policy, particularly aspects of Neutral point of view and What Wikipedia is not. The reason we have a FAQ is to save endless repetitions of the same answer to questions that repeatedly crop up. This one addresses the "hey, here's an interesting result in a new paper, let's write it up!" type of question, which would obviously make more sense in a newspaper. --TS 03:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FAQs are supposed to be noncontroversial. Your Q22 is not. I've tagged it as disputed and opened a section in the parent gw talk page. It simply does not comply with policy, specifically WP:NOTTEXTBOOK which i a subsection of the very policy you're citing. It also contains inside it a misreading of WP:WEIGHT which leads to violations of WP:NPOV by setting up the rules to disproportionately exclude minority viewpoints. Let's follow up over there because this section is supposed to be about adding actual text to the global cooling article. I would like to get back to that. TMLutas (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Since all objections so far have been to the papers, I'm suggesting that the following text start off the section. Reasonable articles to follow, hopefully including peer reviewed papers.

____________

2000s

The 1998 super el-nino temperature peaks not being exceeded according to some global warming measures, popular press speculation arose that global warming had ceased and that a pause or global cooling was starting.

____________

After two weeks in the proposal and no objections, at least this forms a skeleton that we can build on. TMLutas (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That does not even seem to be grammatical, it has (so far) no sources, it fails WP:WEASEL at least twice, and it miss-spells the proper names. Count this as an objection. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I object too you cannot just add weasel words and no sources. Polargeo (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It does fail MoS as "super" should not be part of that sentence. As long as you use the peer reviewed article to support the sentence, and now a press related article due to how you wrote it, I would be okay with it. Perhaps you should avoid using "popular press speculation" since you do have that peer-reviewed article to use. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

New try

"According to some global warming measures, temperatures have peaked in 1998. As time went on, popular press speculation arose that global warming had ceased and that a pause or global cooling started."

The point is to pare down to the barest skeleton and get something that is acceptable via consensus. Something this short would need to be section stubbed and I think that we can do better than that but please hold off on objections on citation for the present. The present question is whether the text would be ok if appropriately cited and then what would need citation to support.

The BBC had an article titled What happened to global warming? that would be relevant and that's only one example. I'm not including the BBC article yet because I'd like to change the dynamic of this discussion to finding small things we can agree on and build from there. Can we agree on these two sentences or do I need to use the BBC article as source for them? National Geographic has another article, another article that's available.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TMLutas (talk • contribs)

"No warming" ≠ cooling. Guettarda (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but a number of stories are hedging in exactly that way saying that warming's stopped and cooling might very well have started to be soon followed by the end of the world as we know it. It seems an accurate way to characterize the popular press. If you're in favor of one or the other instead I've no objection, just propose a text. TMLutas (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD but ...but please be careful. Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly. Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, usually painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You reverted a section heading , specifically "2000s" as "reckless". This is distinctly unhelpful. You just won't give an inch. Can you explain how the 5 character text "2000s" is reckless, especially when the only real objection to the 12/2009 paper by Qing-Bin Lu is that it is still in press? TMLutas (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in the section. And discussion here has shown that there's nothing to add. We shouldn't have a blank section that has no prospect of expansion, at this point in time. Guettarda (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to add? Are you (finally!) making a claim that there are no reliable sources talking about/asserting/covering global cooling in the past decade that merit inclusion? If people would actually say that, successfully defend that, I would desist. Until your assertion, nobody's said it which is why, after waiting for half a month (recklessly according to WMC) I added the section stub. Thank you for your honesty. TMLutas (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved comment from my talk page. Article issues should be discussed here. Guettarda (talk)

Remember all those times I was asking whether anybody wanted to declare that there should not be a section? If you look at the half a month's discussion nobody actually took me seriously and declared it. Now you're reverting a section title and a *stub* template as being, what, too reckless as WMC is saying? I've been keeping things as narrow in the hope of somebody on your side of the argument agreeing to *anything* so that we could have *some* kind of coverage of the past decade. And now you're reverting stubs after declining when asked to say that there's no case for anything on global cooling in the past decade.

There, in fact, has been plenty of stuff on global cooling in sources considered reliable, such as the BBC, Nature, and that pair of papers that you and others have been busy trying to shove under the rug. The $10,000 bet between a UK AGW scientist and two Russian solar scientists is relevant too. But the unwarranted high bar of peer review only backed by sufficient bullies willing to revert anything else out of existence led me to lead with the recent paper to see if there was any good faith out there. After half a month and way too much typing, you and WMC are down to reverting section stubs as too forward. Are you sure you want to defend that to the wider community? I've already notified an admin over WMC's action. If it turns into a group affair, it's going up on the noticeboard. TMLutas (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:2over0#Please_judge to be precise. I've answered there William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that has been discussed here is the one paper which you were misquoting. As of the others - I don't know what $10,000 bet you're talking about, so I don't have an opinion on it. And the other stuff - I don't see how they would be useful to write a "2000s" section. And you have not presented any way in which they might be. So, at present, nothing has been presented that could be used to create such a section. The fact that you created it as an empty stub reinforces that perception. Guettarda (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bet: *I* know. But so what - that belongs, if anywhere, on GWC William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to our very long and tedious discussion on the subject in September of 2008. It's in Archives 4 on this talk page. The last go around the objection was that none of it was peer reviewed and only peer reviewed stuff should get in. TMLutas (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've finally had enough about accusations of my bad faith, my not having read the paper, etc. The full text of the relevant sections are now here. It's a bit more extensive than Guettarda's quotation but still, I hope, within the bounds of fair comment and fair use. Since the section title is "Effects of CFCs and CRE-Driven Ozone Depletion on Global Climate Change", can we dispense with the idea that the paper is not relevant? TMLutas (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't we already establish that it's just a "what if...?" calculation? --TS 16:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather different problem there - how does a quote that extensive qualify as fair use? Guettarda (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see there is still no 2000's section, could it be the AGW gatekeepers will stonewall this topic until everyone simply gives up !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.137.68 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the 2000’s section could reference this data to show negative AGW in the last decade, even though these two graphs only goes to 2008 I’m sure it will eventually be updated to 2010 accentuating even more the negative AGW in the 2000’s: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html

Also the 2000’s section could reference UAH global temperatures from NASA’s Aqua satellite , data from the last decade showing no AGW (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_09.jpg ). When superimposed over the CO2 data from Mauna Loa a negative CO2/AGW correlation is portrayed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg ) !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you might encounter some small problems reliably sourcing such nonsense. --TS 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

TS, are you saying the the University of East Anglia, source of data for the HADCRUT3 graph mentioned above is not reliable, why would you infer this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.195 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying your interpretation of the trend from the data is unlikely to be corroborated by the vast majority of reputable scientists and statisticians. --TS 21:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of the graphically represented HADCRUT3 data for the 2000's is self evident, what you are saying is the East Anglia data is not reputable, or are you saying the hockey stick shape of the 1900's data and the vast majority of reputable scientists and statisticians that interpreted the 1900's data were not reputable ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.252 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

IP editor above has accentuates that all data shows no global warming and even a temperature decline in the 2000’s (or last 12 years)! How can a 2000’s section be written so as to hide this decline and present AGW as truthiness. I think one option is to delete the 1980’s and 1990’s section so not to have too do an an embarrassing 2000’s section ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.231.23 (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rasool and Schneider

The following sentence is cited to Rasool and Schneider (1971) which was apparently published in the journal Science:

"If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!"

Stylistically this doesn't look anything like the house style of any reputable journal. Does the sentence really end in an exclamation mark? Is it really sourced from a scientific paper? Was the paper accepted for publication by Science? --TS 15:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Your invaluable source: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/sci_env_cooling.04 William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fans of exact quotation accuracy may like to know that the "quote" AR gives above is not found word-for-word in the paper, but is essentially accurate (including the perhaps rather unfortunate "!").

1996. (or perhaps that should be "1996!")

So you've been at this for quite a while, eh? --TS 22:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You may have noticed: I know what I'm talking about (and, I've seen it all before guv :-() William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of a new addition

Typical mass media misrepresentation of science.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've removed the following quite extensive addition: Other climate scientists such as Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center and Habibullo Abdussamatov, of St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia have asserted that the earth has already entered a cooling phase, although the proposed mechanisms differ from THC weakening. Svensmark has promoted a theory of increased cloud cover due to increased cosmic ray activity [1] and Abdussamatov proposes reduced solar irradiance as the cause. [2] Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences and member of the IPCC has predicted global cooling, at least in the short term, as a result of changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), noting that the NAO may have also been responsible for some of the strong global warming seen prior to 1999.[3] [1] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/ [2] http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3515/Prominent-Russian-Scientist-We-should-fear-a-deep-temperature-drop--not-catastrophic-global-warming [3] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news The main problem here is sourcing. Source 1 and 2 are ridiculous. Source 3 reports Latif as saying we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool. This is a bit vague and he's apparently talking about the degree of natural variability in the NAO, which is hardly what we mean when we talk of global cooling. --TS 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Latif hasn't predicted cooling. We've done taht to death elsewhere, I could dredge it out if anyone doubts it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC) If the problem is sourcing, the solution is to delete the source and fact tag it. The first source is a translation of a newspaper account with the translation being approved by the original author. I don't find this tertiary source particularly ridiculous but let's not get contentious. Would using the original article URL be acceptable as a source ( http://jp.dk/opinion/kronik/article1809681.ece )? The 2nd ridiculous source can likewise be repaired using this URL instead http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf and linking to the original paper. On the third, I think that you're suffering from a bit of ownership of the term. If others use the term in that fashion, it's not correct for you to say that it's out of bounds. It's merely an alternate way to use the term which should be accommodated if it goes beyond fringe. Latif's use of that in a speech to 1500 IPCC scientists takes it beyond fringe in my opinion but if you want to argue fringe, that's a separate question that should be talked out. TMLutas (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC) We have a verifiability policy. While tagging is an option, in the case of egregiously poor sourcing the correct thing to do is to remove the unverified statements. Whoever told you that the correct thing to do was to leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in the encyclopedia misled you. This is absolutely not the case. --TS 20:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Sure removal in the case of egregious, unfixable problems is the right way to go but both 1 and 2 were easily fixable if you don't have a chip on your shoulder and are interested in improvement. This is a new account that just got his first two edits removed in a pretty abrupt fashion. This is exactly the reason why climatology/global warming has such a poor reputation and a large reason, I suspect, why the subject's on probation. I'm rapidly losing my reluctance to go to the noticeboard. TMLutas (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Please address the topic and not me. I removed what appeared to be exceptionally poorly sourced statements. --TS 21:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC) "Global cooling", just like "global warming", is a set term. It's not "global warming" if the Earth heats up half the year due to cyclical processes, or even every 11 years due to the solar cycle, and its not "global cooling" if these effects run the other way. Both terms at least imply a long-term, climatic component, and a good argument can even be made that "global cooling" predominantly refers to the 1970's media circus, and not to any real physical process. Independent of that, Abdussamatov has become a clown, his opinion is certainly not notable as a scientific one. Svensmark is less of a joke, but promoting a single popular press editorial primary source in the lede is certainly undue weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Set term, really? You self-contradict by offering two competing definitions in your own paragraph. There are others such as the Urban Dictionary's conflation of the term, calling it a synonym of global dimming. Now those other definitions might be "fringe" "wrong" or whatever but you haven't established that yet. TMLutas (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC) This has got to go. The sourcing is atrocious; Abdussamatov isn't a climate scientist (he's an astrophysicist); etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I've removed yet another reference to Latif, added by User:Grundle2600. --TS 00:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Here is your revert of my edit. You commented that it was a poor source. But it's the U.K.'s second biggest selling daily newspaper. How is that a poor source? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC) The Daily Mail isn't exactly a reliable source for science. Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Can you cite any information in the reverted edit that is not accurate? I think that to a person with a Ph.D. who writes scientific papers, perhaps they would not like using a mainstream newspaper as a source. But wikipedia is for everyone. My highest level of education is a bachelor's degree in math. I know how to read. I know how to interpret information. A mainstream newspaper is not as detailed as a scientific paper, but that doesn't mean it's not reliable. Wikipedia is for everyone to edit, not just people who write scientific papers. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC) can you find anything in it that *is* accurate? Please don't use newspapers to source science frmo, especially not rags like the Daily Mail. This is all a waste of time William M. Connolley (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC) The first thing is tone - read the article. Anything written with a tone like that should be taken with a large grain of salt, not matter what the source. The style is clearly polemic. Being published in a newspaper known for poor science reporting makes the matter worse. Between 2007 and 2009, Arctic summer sea ice increased by 26% - we'd need something more than a newspaper report to support this claim. It shouldn't be hard to source a claim like that. More to the point, what's the connection between summer sea ice and "global cooling"? One does not relate, in a linear fashion, with the other. Scientists predicted that this was a sign of a trend of cooler weather which would last for between 20 and 30 years - This is too broad. All scientists? Or, as the article says, "some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists"? That's an extraordinary claim. It needs really solid sourcing. This new cooling trend was predicted by Mojib Latif, who heads a research team at the Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, and his colleagues, in a paper that was published published in 2008. - Boris says it's wrong about Latif, and I'd take his word on it. If you read his Wikipedia article, you'd see a link to this link.[10] If you look at the third slide, you'll see "cooling". It's impossible to know exactly what he's saying without the text of the talk, but it's pretty clear from that slide that he's not talking about anything that could be called "global cooling"...look at the trend line. Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, also predicted the same cooling trend in the journal Geophysical Research Letters - perhaps, but Latif doesn't predict appear to predict global cooling, and Tsonis, as best I can tell, isn't predicting "global cooling" - he's appears to be talking about cyclical patterns that underlie anthropogenic forcing. "Global cooling" relates to ideas about a possible new ice age, not cyclical variation. So none of this appears to be relevant to this article. Guettarda (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC) It looks like you have better sources. Thanks for explaining all of that to me. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC) If it wasn't obvious already, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif will help William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Well that should slow things down until the next news cycle. Sadly these chumps can make up nonsense in their newspapers quicker than the scientists they misquote can debunk it. Let nobody ever again claim that the Daily Mail is a reliable source on science. --TS 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Do you think any of the people pushing that edit will learn anything from this? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC) William M. Connolley, thanks for that link. Wow! So The Daily Mail took a scientist's claims, and twisted them around to make it look like he said something that he never said. That's horrible that they did that! Thank you so much for posting that link. Does this mean that the Guardian is a good source for science? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC) You're learning. Good. But you're not there yet. To answer your question: the Grauniad is a better source than the Mail, but it is not a good source for science. It is, however, a WP:RS for errors in the Mail William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately British tabloids have a long and inglorious history of fabricating quotes and entire stories ("Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster", "London Bus Found On Moon", etc), which makes them poor sources for pretty much anything. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC) [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.110.143 (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Now we have Fox News misquoting the DT misquoting Latif. Chinese whispers, anyone? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Fox News is aware that their reporting of complex stories needs improvement so yesterday they hired a new analyst. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)