Talk:Global cooling/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

External Links to Popular Technology and William M. Connolley personal websites

Over the course of the day the popular technology article listing historical articles of this conjecture have been added and removed in a kind of slow motion edit war. WMC removed the article because it wasn't authoritative and popular technology is seen as a partisan source. Yet as I was looking at the external references I find a reference to WMC's personal website for articles that disprove global cooling. I much don't care about the AGW stuff (well, I'm interested in the subject matter but don't quite care who is right or wrong) but WP:Balance and Weight are important here. I'm for either keeping both references or neither. I do happen to think that WMC's personal site is as authoritative on global warming research in the 70s as Popular Technology is on global cooling media articles in the 70s. Can we have both please? either source appears to cover what they know and both are mostly listd of links to articles that either show media articles from the 70s displaying the alarm of this defunct theory or showing articles on the global warming research that was going on in the 70s, which appears to be substantial. Can we have both since both appear to be RS...neither is NPOV....but together they bring BALANCE. Or we can have neither which would also be balanced but would show a more watered down article.-Justanonymous (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

WMC's site is a WP:RS for this as background material, since WMC is a published author on this particular topic (his paper in BAMS - ref #2 in this article. See WP:SPS ... too quote:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications

Since we just link to it as further reading, there is no problem. As for the "popular technology" article... That one is without doubt not a WP:RS. And having both is not balance - it is False balance. --Kim D. Petersen 08:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

To reaffirm, POPTECH.BLOGSPOT.COM is a blogspot account. Not a RS at all. — TPX 09:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the "blogspot" page is - the edit I made on this page had nothing to do with it so I'm not sure why you put that note on my page TPX. In addition, I don't know what the issue is with the popular technology site (and yes I did read the edit notes, thank you very much William M. Connolley). The page appears to be a bunch of articles from the 70's about global cooling - I honestly thought it was a good collection of newspaper/print sources on the subject. I'm not looking to grind any axe and have no dog in this fight - I don't know anything about the subject matter - so I'm not sure what the hubbub is about (and I'm certainly not edit warring...). However, I'm not a WP:RS expert so I'm happy to be wrong. Ckruschke (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

If you read the edit history, I'm baffled as to how you came to miss unbalanced blog. I could explain what that means, if its unclear to you. Please let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Because I assumed your edit comment was an "unbalanced opinion". Considering the politics of this issue, because its associated with global warming, I would expect a reference to this being a hidden blogspot page and not just something that appeared, to me, as an "I don't like this because it says stuff I don't like" page. I think you can understand my confusion since I am not an expert on that website... Ckruschke (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

To confirm, I think it's an undertandable mistake to have been made on finding a deceptively innocent looking web page, but Poptech is an anonymous blogger best known for adding spurious contrarian arguments to comments on other blogs. Not a reliable source, and web pages should always be checked for provenance. The use of "alarmism" is a clue. . dave souza, talk 12:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I made that mistake. For some reason, lapse in judgement, I thought popular technology was a sister publication to popular science or popular mechanics..not the most authoritative of RSes but on par with the personal website on an expert. Now that I'm reading this, I'm seeing it very different....it is just a an anonymous blog and probably doesn't belong. I'll be more careful. -Justanonymous (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, it's deceptive: http://poptech.org/ is a much more reputable looking blog, though don't think it's in the same league as http://www.popsci.com/ of Popular Science. Gets a bit confusing. . dave souza, talk 13:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation dave souza - I was in Justanonymous' boat as well. You were very helpful! I wasn't aware it was a hidden blog with an axe to grind - all I looked at was the links to articles (which I thought was thorough and fine) and ignored the prose above as "immaterial". Ckruschke (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

PopTech's list is of 100 articles, from numerous newspapers and magazines, all from the 1970s about Global Cooling. It is just a list, with very little commentary, and it appears that every article on the list is Reliably Sourced to Wikipedia standards.

That's in contrast to the Wm Connolley editorial on his own blog site, which is already in the external links section of this article. His page has a much shorter list of articles, most of them hosted on his own blog site, and it has more commentary than it has article links.

Neither blog is a Reliable Source, but everything on the PopTech page is Reliably Sourced (except the blog visitors' comments at the end). That is not true of the Connolley page.

We could just add all 100 articles to the External Links of this article, but that would be a bit verbose. I think it is much tidier to just link to the PopTech list. The only advantage I can see to adding all 100 article links individually is that there'd be no blog visitors' comments, but these days many prominent newspaper and magazine articles have visitors' comments sections at the end, and we don't exclude references to them from Wikipedia for that reason. Is there anyone here who would rather have links to all 100 articles added to this article, instead of just the single link to PopTech's list? NCdave (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The relative merits of these sources is well covered above. See WP:SYN, WP:PSTS and WP:ELNO betore trying to spam external links into this article. . dave souza, talk 08:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Fake site by internet troll?" Dave, I can see that you are passionate about this topic -- perhaps a little too passionate to be editing Wikipedia about it. That type of rhetoric is not appropriate.

Moreover, you did not address anything I wrote before you deleted the external reference. The PopTech page is not "fake." It is a real list of one hundred articles (well, 99 articles and a TV show) from the 1970s about the global cooling scare, which is the topic of this article. All, or nearly all, of them are WP:Reliably Sourced, mostly newspaper and magazine articles. The list includes highly relevant articles from The Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, Sydney Morning Herald, Montreal Gazette, Windsor Star, Chicago Tribute, Vancouver Sun, Christian Science Monitor, and many other indisputably reliable sources. Most are not currently mentioned in this article.

I asked a question, which you didn't answer. Would you prefer that the relevant articles be added individually to the references or external links for this article, instead just adding one the link to the PopTech page?

Wm Connolley's self-published blog editorial, in contrast, is not a reliable source about things other than his own opinions, and his opinions are not the topic of this Wikipedia article. He is a software engineer and mathematician, and a passionate climate activist, with a strong POV and a history of controversial climate-related editing. He has no degree in any topic related to this article. He is not a "recognized expert" on the history of climatology, though he co-authored one paper on the topic. That paper is already cited (four times!) in this article, so his blog editorial seems very redundant. Don't you agree? NCdave (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your concern has been thoroughly addressed in prior discussions (including this one). Pop Tech (POPTECH.BLOGSPOT.COM) is a site maintained by a non notable blogger, thus his page is not suitable for consideration. Our guidelines are perfectly clear about that. Connolley, on the other hand, has material expertise directly relating to this topic. Your second point amounts to a threat (if I do not get my own way, I am going to spam this article with needless press cuttings that add nothing of value to the article). We also have a guideline against such disruption. It would be productive if you made yourself familiar with it. — TPX 11:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

TPX, I made no "threat" of "spam" or "disruption," and I would ask that you please try to assume good faith.

Articles in the world's leading newspapers on precisely the topic of this article are certainly not "needless press cuttings that add nothing of value to the article." They should be cited, either directly, or else indirectly by citing a list like PopTech's.

Here's an idea. We could put a list of reliably sourced articles on Wikipedia as a separate article, and cite that. That would have the advantage of avoiding PopTech's (minimal) commentary, and if there's any question about the Reliable Sourcing of any of the articles it could be addressed individually. What do you think of that idea?

W/r/t Wm. Connolley's self-published editorial, "having material expertise" on the topic is not Wikipedia's criteria for a personal web page to be considered a Reliable Source. The rule on self-published sources is:

"self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets — are largely not acceptable. ... Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. ... Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Meaning no disrespect to Dr. Connolley, who might well be an excellent mathematician and software engineer, being co-author (not primary author) of just one (1) paper related to a topic, with no educational credentials even remotely related to the topic, obviously doesn't qualify him as an "established expert" working in the relevant field. What's more, even if he were an established expert, that wouldn't necessarily qualify his self-published web page to be used as a Reliable Source. If he was an established expert who could be reasonably expected to be unbiased w/r/t the topic, and if the content of his page weren't adequately covered elsewhere in the article, then I would agree that a link to his page would be reasonable.

But that isn't the case. He is a political activist, not neutral at all. His page says things like, "'greenhouse sceptics' are fond of claiming that 'all scientists' were predicting cooling a decade ago and now they've switched to warming."

That's obviously a straw-man, or, more charitably, "exaggeration for effect." It's polemical, not informational, and not accurate. Not only are skeptics not "fond of claiming" such a thing, I don't recall hearing even one skeptic ever say that.

There might well be material on that page of Dr. Connolley's which would be a valuable addition to this article, but the page as a whole is not a reliable source. NCdave (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"They should be cited, either directly, or else indirectly by citing a list like PopTech's." So you keep saying. The problem is, you fail to show how listing every individual report directly would add value to the page (much less a standalone article) when it's adequately explained already that 'cooling' conjecture existed, including a section describing notable examples. — TPX 12:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't use Poptech's article, because it is, deliberately, biased. It is not a resource you can point anyone at, without warning them of this. Mine is unbiased, and reliable William M. Connolley (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WMC does have a point, his personal site requests and lists scientific papers on global warming during that timeframe regardless of bias and he lists those. The WMC page is not interested in popular media accounts because that is not his intended scope. I assume good faith that he's listing everything that he's receiving so his page is not biased....he would report out whatever the findings were of his research. The poptech rhetoric by contrast is very clearly an attempt to paint modern global warming alarmism in bad light by drawing a parallel to the global cooling media reporting of the 70s. The poptech article does this by listing factual popular media reporting on global cooling and by the rhetoric it uses. That said, the meat of the poptech content is a wonderful list of factual articles of popular media reporting on global cooling. The poptech list is far better and more comprehensive than what our article has and my understanding is that the article is not just about the science but about the popular sentiment. Regardless, the fact poptech is clearly biased, a blog, and has biased commentary is problematic I can understand the resistance to inclusion. Does someone want to just insert the actual list of media references? I don't have time and I see risk in running afoul of the tenuous peace this poor little article currently enjoys. So if we decide to do anything, let's try to test it out here vs getting into an edit war. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Connolley, with all due respect, you are not the best person to judge whether your own work is "unbiased" or not. I do not doubt that you believe your own opinions are correct, but that's a tautology, and when your page says things like "'greenhouse sceptics' are fond of claiming that 'all scientists' were predicting cooling a decade ago and now they've switched to warming," which you surely know is not accurate, you must concede, if you are honest, that your page is not entirely free of bias.

That said, I rather like this idea of yours: "[Poptech's list] is not a resource you can point anyone at, without warning them of [its bias]." Perhaps such a warning is the solution to our dilemma: simply note the differing POVs of his page and yours.

I think we can convey the meaning more tactfully w/o using the word "bias," however. For Poptech's list, we could note that it contains "commentary from a perspective which is skeptical of anthropogenic climate change," and for your page we could note that it contains "commentary from a perspective supportive of anthropogenic climate change," or something like that. What do you think?

Justanonymous, I agree with you, for the most part. But if you follow the links on Dr. Connolley's page you'll find that all of them just point to his own web site. There's a list of 18 near the top, and another 7 near the end. But with the exception of one which is based on his own work, they are not references to papers, they are references to his own reviews and "notes from and reflections upon" (his words) various papers, articles, and other material. Almost all of them contain pointed (unencyclopedic) editorial comments reflecting his own strongly-held POV, most lack links to the material which he discusses, and many even lack full citations to that material. One of them, with disarming candor, he begins by saying, "Note: I haven't read this paper," and another by saying, "I have not read all of [this] by any means."

Dr. Connolley does have many interesting things to say, and he writes well, but, unlike the Poptech list, his page is not & does not contain a list of reliably-sourced articles.

I agree with you that this article is supposed to be about both the general press and the scientific debate back then, and also I agree that a possible solution to the PopTech list dilemma is simply, as you say, to "just insert the actual list of media references." Do you think that list would best be placed here, within this article, or on a separate page, linked-to from this article? NCdave (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=with%20all%20due%20respect William M. Connolley (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"'greenhouse sceptics' are fond of claiming that 'all scientists' were predicting cooling a decade ago and now they've switched to warming," which you surely know is not accurate. Wrong. Its entirely accurate. As to the rest: talk on, its a waste of electrons William M. Connolley (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is another story here. In the 70s, the media went only with what was sensational and the scientific community was not organized to "push back" at all. As evidenced by the WMC research which seems to show that the majority of scientists thought the world was warming even back then but the mass media alarming the people to an impending ice age sold more magazines, newspapers, and gave Mr. Spock a job after Star Trek. Recently, when the Times Atlas reported that Greenland had lost 10% (?) of its ice, the response from the scientific community was strong and immediate. So there is much more going on here than mere alarmism and flip flopping and we can't directly equate the global cooling alarm of the 70s with modern day global warming. I do agree that WMC is probably not the best arbiter of his own work and he does by definition exhibit a structural bias (he believes in what his research has told him but we can hardly blame him for that so yes, he's a Green Party member) BUT, we do have to take him at his word in good faith that he's not being unethical - if the preponderance of the research showed that scientists were reporting on global cooling in the 70s, I'm sure that would've come out by now and WMC would've been discredited which he has not been. Back to the 70s if we recall, Newsweek recently apologized for its mistake back in the 70s and the media is not making that same mistake now, the media today is trying to echo what the scientists are saying and if modern day global warming turns out to be overly alarmist, it's the IPCC and climate scientists' reputations that will suffer in the long term not the mass media. All that aside, the popular media reporting of global cooling was significant and very material in the 70s and the poptech list is nicely comprehensive but the poptech article itself is clearly biased and tries to make connections that perhaps aren't there. I wish there were a way to just include the WP:RS articles that poptech lists without the reporting and commentary - which would make the article stronger.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@NCDave, I started reading some of the WMC blog and I get what you mean. I'll read it more fully in the next few days to see what he's saying. If I recall WMC has a paper published on what scientists thought in the 70s. As I recall that paper was rigorous and peer reviewed but the WMC blog is more casual and does not benefit from peer review. Taken one way WP:RS sources don't have to be unbiased...so by that standard both he and poptech might be included, if the facts they represent are real facts or perhaps neither if they're too far out of the mainstream. I don't think any side is going to budge without likely an edit war and I'm just tired of that so maybe it's as WMC says....waste of electrons. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Connolley, I understand that you are passionate about this topic, but calling another editor's writing "a waste of electrons" is not proper Wikipedia conduct. You may participate or not in this discussion, as you wish, but if you're going to participate then please do so courteously and constructively.

As for your other point, if you truly believe that it is "entirely accurate" that "'greenhouse sceptics' are fond of claiming that 'all scientists' were predicting cooling a decade ago and now they've switched to warming," then please give us a few examples. Name a few skeptics who have said that, and tell us where & when. If even a few skeptics (let alone many or most, as your phrase implies) are "fond" of saying that, as you insist is the case, then there should be many examples that you can cite.

But I doubt it. I am active on blogs on both sides of the issue, and I don't recall ever hearing someone say that. I've heard people say things about "most scientists" or "the scientific consensus in the 1970s," or similar. In fact, I personally recall reading and hearing warnings from scientists in the mid-1970s that if we didn't curb air pollution then renewed ice-age conditions were an imminent threat. But I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim that "all scientists" were predicting cooling, neither then nor now, any more than "all scientists" predict warming now. I think that everyone knows that even the best scientists make mistakes, and there are always some dissenters from the majority view, even in areas of inquiry much less contentious than climatology. NCdave (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Justanonymous, if you read the articles that Poptech cites, you'll find that all or nearly all of those stories are simply reporting on the statements and findings of prominent climate scientists. So while, as now, the popular press perhaps didn't reflect very well the real diversity of scientific opinion on the issue, and also, as you noted, the popular press tends to emphasize the most sensational stories, there really was not a major inconsistency between the popular press and dominant scientific opinion in the 1970s. Those reliably sourced stories cited by Poptech really did accurately reflect what the most prominent climate scientists were saying at the time.

I'm also coming around to your belief that the best solution is "to just include the WP:RS articles that poptech lists without the reporting and commentary." The only problem I can see with doing so would be that of attribution. After all, it is obvious that a lot of work went into compiling that list. As long as we just go back to the original sources I'm sure there's no legal issue with using them, but it would be discourteous to omit crediting Poptech, without permission. I can email and ask.

Do you think that list would best be placed here, within this article, or on a separate page, linked-to from this article? NCdave (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"[If] you read the articles that Poptech cites, you'll find that..." is an open invitation to perform original research, and the the following statements themselves

• "there really was not a major inconsistency between the popular press and dominant scientific opinion"
• "stories cited by Poptech really did accurately reflect what the most prominent climate scientists were saying at the time"

also constitute original research, which is expressly forbidden, and thus any attempt to insert a list of articles into this page will be reverted, lacking reliable sources that establish their notability independent of the Poptech blogspot post. — TPX 10:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

NCDave. the issue is that for better or worse on Wikipedia there is an AGW group and there is an Anti-AGW group. Absolutely no disrespect intended to either part, they believe what they believe for their own reasons. One thing I have noted is that eminently WP:RS sources and Peer Reviewed Scientific papers tend to be accepted by all parties for inclusion albeit there is jostling over the meaning and the exact words to use. So, if WMC's peer reviewed research is wrong or inaccurate then that argument is not going to be fought with simple argumentation or by anybody saying that the media of the 70s accurately represented scientific opinion - it's going to be disproven with scientific research that is peer reviewed in scientific journals. To date, I haven't seen any scientific research that disproves the WMC thesis and that might be because he's right or because nobody has studied the subject seriously - I don't know but until a bunch of serious researchers come out and disprove him, I'll take WMC as a serious researcher in good faith. If a contrasting viewpoint is out there, bring it out and I'm sure WMC and others will want to review that and they will acquiesce if they're refuted. I do remember the Smithsonian Wall Mural showing that the world was on the edge of an ice age back in the 1970s and I think it's still there but that was expressing Geologic Time not Short Term human history. Take a look at this http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/global-cooling-exhibit-still-on-display-at-the-smithsonian.html. Clearly people are confused between geologic history of the planet and near term global warming and we have to be careful with this topic. It's very charged and people are willing to edit war over their philosophically held viewpoints - which serves no-one.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This article in general, and the dispute over whether or not to include Popular Technology.net as an external link, serves as one more on a long list of examples of how Wikipedia is unable to responsibly, reliably, or neutrally handle controversial topics. The article's prose is fairly drenched in a point of view, i.e. that of the AGW group, one of whose talking points is to minimize the extent of the global cooling warnings of the 1970s. William M. Connelley and his allies have effectively taken over this article, a phenomenon so frequently seen on Wikipedia. It's certainly true that the Popular Technology site has a point of view, just as Connelley's site does. An external site's having a having a viewpoint isn't a disqualifier at Wikipedia, except to the Wikilawyers who will find a clause here or there. What actually matters is the content of an external site. Popular Technology offers a long list of articles that referenced global cooling throughout the 1970s; those articles cited high-level scientific backing for the idea. But it's been excluded here, which is sadly typical of Wikipedia when one side of a controversial topic gains control. This article is one of many reasons why Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source extends only to the sorts of non-controversial issues that the old World Book encyclopedia covered. The minute there's disagreement, forget it.Moynihanian (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE policy. Note that WP:SOURCE policy requires us to base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. While that may apply to the real http://poptech.org/ even Roger A. Pielke, Jr. has noticed that one of the fake PopTech.net's lists doesn't represent his own papers accurately, and Professor Russell Dickerson, University of Maryland, has concluded that the content of the site is intentionally inaccurate and misleading. Not all sides are equal, nor should fringe misinformation be given equal validity. . dave souza, talk 09:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as I predicted, the Wikilawyers will find a way to include or exclude whatever a majority of ideologues or other ax-grinders want. It happens constantly at Wikipedia, which is why this organization's reputation is pretty much in the gutter among serious people. The site in question offers a list of articles that were published about global cooling. I've clicked on the links, and they work. There is nothing inaccurate about the list, and anyone who looks at it knows that. What's going on in this article is an attempt to minimize the global cooling scare of the 1970s by denying the existence of literature during that period. If it means Wikilawyering, hey, why not? Trust me, we've seen it before here. It's why fewer and fewer serious people even bother.Moynihanian (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Point of misinformation

House of Commons - Communicating climate science - Science and Technology Committee item 52: "The Mail considers climate science to be a political issue and is of the view "that not every piece of science by every scientist should be reported as fact".[106] This ambiguous view of science may explain the claim in the Mail's submissions that scientists were predicting an ice age 20 years ago. An examination of the scientific knowledge at the time shows that this was clearly not the case, although it was widely and inaccurately reported as such in the media at that time.[107]" Also amusing, The Telegraph told us "we report information, and rely on our commentators to interpret it." . . Did someone say Delingpole? H/T John Timmer. . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Current cooling cycle headlines, FYI.

Headine-1: ‘’’ Deep Freeze Recap: Coldest Temperatures of the Century for Some’’’

• http://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/coldest-arctic-outbreak-1990s-midwest-south-east-20140103

QUOTE: “ Now that the January 2014 deep freeze is abating, it's time to take stock of its place in history. The core of the cold came Monday, Jan. 6, and Tuesday, Jan. 7. Subzero temperatures affected a large swath from Montana to New York and as far south as northern Oklahoma and northern Alabama.” [We have all seen additional articles.] — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This has zero relevance. — TPX 00:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Local cold spell. We had 18℃ today (and over 10℃ for most of February), and Australia had a massive heat wave in January[1][2]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

'Typical Wiki-Hypocrisy' Not relevant, you say. Then where is your contribution to the Hurricane Sandy item, which prominently blames global warming for EVERY weather event? Moynihanian (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Headine-2: ‘’'3 Incredible Photos Illustrate Just How Cold It Is at Lake Superior’’’

• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/08/3-incredible-photos-illustrate-just-how-cold-it-is-at-lake-superior/

QUOTE: “Several stunning images captured by a Minnesota photographer illustrate just how cold it is at Lake Superior.” [Is this relevant to "Global Cooling"?] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out above, no, individual local weather events are not generally relevant to global climate change, wether warming or cooling. They might be if there is a statistical significant clustering of such events and a plausible mechanism, as pointed out by a reliable source.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Reid Bryson

How can you have an article on the subject of anthropogenic cooling that doesn't even mention Reid Bryson? 71.178.145.140 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably because there isn't much around about what he said. What significant things do you think he published? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Gwynne

We quote extensively from a 1975 Newsweek article by Peter Gwynne, he's commented on it recently. . 20:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it. He still seems to be in denial about how rubbish his original was. I don't think there's anything useful in it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Orbital Forcing

Under the orbital forcing section, the last sentence states, "Secondly,future orbital variations will not closely resemble those of the past". WHY? Is this just some sort of opinion we are supposed to take for granted? This is unsubstantiated statement that doesn't belong here without further reference or scientific substantiation.70.196.204.36 (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)STEVE

Little

The argument over the word little is a little silly. My rewording avoids the need to use any quantitative adjectives and is equally correct. The only reason to insist on including little is personal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.243.117 (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Noting the lack of support within the scientific community is part of the history. If you think the argument is "silly" - perhaps you mean by that its too trivial to be worth arguing about - then just stop doing so William M. Connolley (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Needs total rewrite

The topic of "global cooling" is an extremely complicated one that in this article's case has been reduced to some idiotic political argument about past near term climate predictions. The earth warms and cools. There are ice ages and there are warming periods. An article about global cooling should be about how cooling periods have occurred. The article as it stands should be a minor sidenote about people making short term climate predictions with regard to cooling or warming and how they turned out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You're looking for climate change William M. Connolley (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Does the Climate change article not cover this? The Global warming article is a sister article to this, and it also focuses on near term climate predictions, rather than an analysis of the historical processes. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

For future reference, see the hatnote right below the article title to find the article you are looking for. Gap9551 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

References

The single reference [3] for the lead section does not say what the lead section claims it says. The word "conjecture" does not appear at all in the reference. Biscuittin (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nor does the word "glaciation". Biscuittin (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nor does the word "1940s". The word "1970s" does appear, but not in connection with global cooling. Biscuittin (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. The article should contain the references. Yes, many lead sections for controversial topics seem to get loaded with refs. Is that reference used elsewhere in the article? Does the lead adequately summarize the article? Vsmith (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The answer to both questions is "No". Biscuittin (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Outdated article

The article is outdated because most of it is pre-1979. The cooling which took place from 1979 to 1997 [4] is therefore not included. Biscuittin (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your link is to a graph cited to a university - just a raw image with no background or explanation. If there was a discussion or valid peer reviewed reference discussing the graph it might be suitable. But as a raw image - no. Vsmith (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that raw data must not be published in Wikipedia in case the peasants misinterpret it? I think the peasants are entitled to make up their own minds. Biscuittin (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a similar bar graph at Climate_change#Ocean_variability. Should that be removed in case the peasants misunderstand it? Biscuittin (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(following ec) We don't "publish" raw data or unexplained raw graphs of that data. We include information/data that is sourced to WP:reliable sources. Where is this temperature graph published? Your reference to "the peasants" is rather absurd. Vsmith (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:other stuff. That graph is from NOAA, again where is the Alabama graph published? Vsmith (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The graph is published here: http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2015/november2015/Nov2015_tlt_update_bar.png So, graphs from the NOAA are OK but graphs from universities are not? Biscuittin (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The UAH dataset has particular problems, and you need a secondary source describing what relationship it has with this topic – otherwise it's irrelevant. . . dave souza, talk 18:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What are these problems? Please give a reference. Biscuittin (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You've already been pointed to UAH satellite temperature dataset, but what's needed from you is a reference to support your claim it has anything to do with the topic of global cooling. . . dave souza, talk 11:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

All pointless

The lead section is inaccurate and biassed. Global cooling is not a 1970s conjecture, it is something which has actually happened many times in the earth's history, most recently in the period 1979 to 1997. This is demonstrated by actual data [5] which is much more reliable than "literature projecting future warming". Biscuittin (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC) I did think about completely re-writing the lead section but I decided to ask for feedback first. Biscuittin (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Literature projecting future warming is no more than fortune telling. Biscuittin (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC) You have your own opinions, but they are clearly your own, and differ from scientific opinion on global warming. You're welcome to those views, but please don't put them here, because they are of no relevance or interest. Your views about the satellite temperature record are (a) WP:OR and (b) incorrect. The record doesn't show cooling from '79 to '97 William M. Connolley (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Also see Etymological fallacy. The meaning of a compound term cannot always be deduced by naively overlaying the meaning of the compounds. As a standing term, global cooling has a specific meaning that is different from any temporary reduction in global temperatures (otherwise it would be essentially a yearly, if not a daily effect). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Does the same Etymological fallacy apply to the term Global warming? Biscuittin (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Yes. The term global warming is generally used to refer to the current and ongoing episode of increased temperature, not to each and any global temperature increase ("exceptions prove the rule", "everything depends on context", etc.). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC) It was premature to remove the "factual accuracy" tag before the dispute is settled. The satellite temperature record is not "my view", it is data published by the University of Alabama at Huntsville. When you say "The record doesn't show cooling from '79 to '97", which record are you talking about? Biscuittin (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Of course the satellite record is not your view. But Literature projecting future warming is no more than fortune telling very clearly is, and has no place here. As to the record: firstly, see what Stephan wrote. Secondly, where do you get the satellite record showing cooling from '79 to '97 from? Do you have any RS for that? If you're just eyeballing the graph, I can eyeball it too, and say no William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC) If the graph doesn't show global cooling between 1979 and 1997 then, by the same token, it doesn't show global warming after 1997. You can't have it both ways. Biscuittin (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC) I haven't asserted here that the graph "show[s] global warming after 1997". You're the only one using that raw graph. You've made assertions apparently based only on that graph; I've asked you if you have sources; you haven't directly replied, you've evaded. If you have no sources then all this discussion is pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC) My source is the graph. Are you claiming that the data in the graph is inaccurate? Biscuittin (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC) You're linking to a primary source and putting forward your own synthesis or original research – which is against policy. Provide a secondary source, or desist. . dave souza, talk 13:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC) I don't know how I can make it any clearer. The graph up to 1997 shows mainly negative figures and, after 1997, mainly positive figures. Do you want me to link to some paper which puts an interpretation on those figures? If so, that would be original research. Biscuittin (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Why are you persisting with putting your own interpretation on the graph? That's clearly against policy. Try finding a published third party secondary source that explicitly makes the point you're trying o put across. . . dave souza, talk 14:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC) I'm not trying to put any interpretation on the graph. What interpretation do you claim I am trying to put? Biscuittin (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC) You've just said the "graph up to 1997 shows mainly negative figures and, after 1997, mainly positive figures|" without any expert published support for that assertion, and you seem to think it has something to do with global cooling but that's not self-evident. Of course it's also the much-adjusted UAH satellite data, which is less significant than land and sea surface datasets. Without a secondary source, you've got nothing. . dave souza, talk 18:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC) You don't have to be an expert to distinguish between positive and negative. A child could do it. What is the basis for your assertion that UAH satellite data is less significant than land and sea surface datasets? Biscuittin (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Apparently, you have to have some level of expertise to interpret that graph of yours. It shows temperature anomalies, compared to a 30 year average (1981-2010) for that month. So the bars show the difference of each month's temperature from the long-term average for that month, not year-to-year or month to month changes. Blue bars don't mean it's getting colder, they just mean that the given month was colder than the same month in the 30 year average. "All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported. (page 2)" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Let me help you with a quote: "The average warming rate of 34 CMIP5 IPCC models is greater than observations, suggesting models are too sensitive to CO2. Policy based on observations, where year-to-year variations cause the most harm, will likely be far more effective than policies based on speculative model output, no matter what the future climate does". [6] Biscuittin (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC) First, Christy is an expert, but he has been wrong and wrong and wrong again. This is not a peer reviewed paper, but his own statement, made to an express political, not a scientific body. And secondly, it has nothing to do with this article or the discussion so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC) (1) Please provide references for your claim that Christy "has been wrong and wrong and wrong again". (2) The fact that a statement is not peer reviewed does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. (3) What is the relevance of the composition of the audience? Biscuittin (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC) (1) I'm not really your research assistant, but given your interest in the UAH satellite temperature dataset, I suggest you read the article, in particular the section UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made. (2) is an empty statement. The bum on the street can be correct about the future of stock exchange. (3) I'm sure you can figure this out for yourself. Note that there is both selection and presentation bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC) RfC Summary of my concerns An accuracy dispute tag has been removed before the dispute is settled There is a dispute about what the term Global cooling actually means I allege that the lead section of the article is inaccurate and biassed My critics claim that it is "not useful" to include temperature data published by the University of Alabama in Huntsville in the article. I claim that it is useful Biscuittin (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Comment - I think it would have to be demonstrated that "Global cooling" is a term commonly used to describe the sort of phenomenon you're describing in the section above, or conversely that it's used pretty exclusively to refer specifically to its alleged usage in the 70s. The lede and the text in the body seem to differ on what the scope of the article actually is. I do think there's some evidence that the term is used in the context of greater cycles of climate change, or in reference to specific periods, but I'm not sure I've seen enough to conclude that it this is its most WP:RECOGNIZABLE usage. If that were the case, might this topic actually be piped to the Climate change article? I think the first step is clarifying and providing evidence about the usage of this term, and then figuring out what the scope of the article should be. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Comment Summoned by a bot. On the subject of accuracy, I think the template was misapplied, and it was inappropriate to get into an edit war to restore it or the external link. Given the large archive of discussion on this topic, the number of references in the article, and the scope of the article, it is hard to justify applying the label "inaccurate" to the entire thing simply because an individual's edits are not accepted. This article has already underwent several consensus-based revisions, and to override that at the will of one editor is not productive, let alone in line with the process here. In the current talk section for this article, I don't see a lot of consensus-seeking or meaningful discussion of the lede, the premise of the article, or the reference that was removed. Biscuittin says it should be changed/included/scrapped, multiple editors disagree, with cause, to which Biscuittin responded by flatly sticking to his guns, then initiating this RfC. The dispute about the definition of the subject also seems to be fairly one-sided: the archives do not reveal a large segment of editors who question the entire premise of the entry, and I don't see any attempt on the current talk page at consensus-building on that subject either, merely bald assertion. Taken as a whole and considering Biscuittin's history on this subject, history of WP:SOAP/NPOV conflicts on this subject (see archives), I see strong evidence for a pattern of tendentious editing rather than a meaningful attempt to improve the encylopedia, and no strong evidence that the concerned raised by this RfC are valid. Furthermore, this RfC process seems to be very unlikely to create a consensus that will be accepted by the party who initiated it. -- GR Mule (Talk/Contribs/Michigan) 19:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC) 1. Accuracy tag: In general I discourage hasty removal of tags when there is a plausible dispute in progress. The tag may bring in Talk comments to support or oppose the tag-claim. That said, the tag appears to reflect the concerns of a single individual, which where considered and rejected by multiple editors on the page. I endorse removal of the tag per the points below. 2 and 3. These appear to have fundamentally the same basis. This article is clearly addressing a valid topic. The concern is essentially whether the topic and title match. This article could plausibly be moved to something like "Global Cooling Hypothesis" and Global_cooling_(disambiguation) could be moved here. However I believe the current article does satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I believe this is the article the large majority of readers would be looking for if they search for "Global Cooling". It has had very significant mentions in the press and other sources. This is certainly the first topic I think of when I hear "Global Cooling". 4. The description of this point was unclear at best. Searching the article history I see the graph was used as a ref, to source article text. (DIFF.) The original text included editorializing WP:Original Research, wholly unsupported by the source. That was agreeably removed. That still leaves two problems. Interpreting a graph to make an arbitrary point is treading on Original Research even if we presume the interpretation is basically accurate. It is reasonable for other editors to raise a dispute and ask for a source that actually makes that point. The final problem is that once the editorializing Original Research portion was removed, I'm unclear what the text is adding to the article. If the text were to be re-added with a new source, it would need to more clearly explain how it is significant in understanding the topic. Alsee (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Comment Also summoned by bot. I also think that the tag was incorrectly used, and should not be on the page. The template is not to be used any time a single editor has an issue with the accuracy of the article, and there is no obligation to keep it there at the moment. I do think that the lead would be much improved if there was a clear, referenced definition of "Global cooling" first and foremost. I do not find the historical description to be factually inaccurate, I do think it's useful, but it is not a very encyclopedic lead, and seems designed to tell a story. Please expand your argument on what the lead says that is inaccurate. The graph, as it was added, was not at all useful. There was no information on what data is illustrated in the graph, who collected the data, and what it means. Additionally, the graph appears to be a primary source, without explanation. Cite the source itself, as in the report that was produced by the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. --Iamozy (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Comment Also summoned by bot. Tag removal sufficiently covered, I think. The question of definition of "Global Cooling" is unrealistic and a red herring. Like most article titles it could mean all sorts of things and it is more important to ensure that the title fits the article, and that it will be easy to find when a reader is fishing for a topic that is likely to deal with the concerns s/he has in mind, and that as far as practical, the reader that encounters the article soon can tell whether s/he has found what is wanted, and where else to look instead or as well. In this case, when I, speaking as a sample of 1, received the RfC, my unthinking assumption was that it meant... pretty well what I found in the first sentence of the lede. Furthermore, just above it was the disambiguation link that offered a reasonable selection of the connections one might reasonably be seeking in the event that this article was not the desired topic, but rather that one was looking for climate change in general, as someone suggested. Anyway, if anyone feels a deep need for more climate change material than appears in this article, then either add it or add more links. That is storm-in-teacup stuff. Furthermore, anyone seeking topics along any of the associated lines and inserting either google terms, or WP search terms might well be expected to try something like "global cooling" quite early in the process, either in seeking precisely this article, or a linked topic. To me that means that the title is at least adequately justified, and if someone thinks of a better bundle of titles, then there is nothing stopping the addition of as many redirects as anyone likes. And the article as it stands has been averaging over 200 hits daily for the last 90 days, which is not bad for a mislabelled minor topic. The lede as it stands reads like a sermon to the choir. I would tidy it up, but I suspect that in the current climate (you should excuse...) it would be a waste of time unless one feels a need for a shouting match. The UAH data I'll refrain from dealing with. Haven't seen it, don't have time at the moment to chase it down, find it hard to imagine that it is crucial in context. No one that I know is currently buying ice-age woollies in case the 1970s GC idea proves to be correct. Bottom line: I am not sure how well-considered this RfC is. A bit of tidying up of the article would do no harm, particularly concerning POV. "Conjecture" is wrongly linked in the lede. The main topic of the article is reasonably labelled by the title, is of encyclopedic historical interest in its own right, and is NO legitimate part of the topic of climate change in general. There is room for more discussion of some of the topics of the period, such as the activities of John Gribbin in this connection. And maybe more... JonRichfield (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Definition of Global cooling I don't think we can make much progress until we have defined Global cooling. My critics seem to be saying that Global cooling is only Global cooling if it is so severe that it leads to an ice age. Anything else is Climate variability. However, they do not apply the same test to Global warming. In the case of Global warming a temperature change as little as 2°C is classed as Global warming. Let's be consistent. Biscuittin (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Try reading both articles, you'll see that sources define them: no doubt that can be improved for this article. What reliable published sources do you propose? . . dave souza, talk 18:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Please be more specific. Which source defines Global warming and which source defines Global cooling. Without this information you are just making assertions. Biscuittin (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Please read the articles, and check out the citations. Have you found any further definitions? . . dave souza, talk 11:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC) I agree that the definition of "Global cooling" should be improved. The way the lead begins seems to indicate that "Global cooling" is nothing more than a term for a 1970s hysteria. Can't we at least begin with saying that it is a term for the phenomena of a large-scale cooling of the Earth's average temperature? --Iamozy (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC) For example, this NASA source describes global cooling as a scientific concept. "There was roughly 0.1°C of global cooling from 1940-1970." "The model indicated that loading the atmosphere with volcanic aerosols should have caused a global cooling" --Iamozy (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC) The various guidelines on article topic/title say to associate the usage with what most people probably are looking for, and to do some form of disambig for the rest. I'm not opposed to doing better disambig. Right now, this broader sense is reported in Global cooling (disambiguation), whereas this article is specifically about the 1970s era conjecture, which is what we usually expect readers to be interested in. The old "Yeah, yeah... warming shmarming... back in the 70's they said it was COOLING!" That's what's on most people's mind when they come this way, so its the reason we organized the articles the way we did. I'd be happy to consider better ways to make the disambig super simple to follow. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Yes I agree with that. Articles are about topics rather than everything that can be described by the title. The title should most commonly refer to what the article is about. The start of the lead is where the topic is described. Disambiguation is used for multiple notable uses of a term. Asking for 'the' definition of global cooling is the wrong question, the right question is whether this articles topic is well defined and is what is most frequently referred to by the term 'global cooling'. As far as I can see that is all fine for this article. Dmcq (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Glacial cycles

My understanding is that the idea of global cooling relates to ice ages being cyclical - for which there is very strong evidence. This article reads like the opposite of an article on global warming, referring to human influences such as "Physical mechanisms". There is no doubt that humans are contributing to global warming. What is not accepted is the possibility that this will be overridden by the naturally occurring global cooling cycle.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You mean Global cooling#Orbital forcing? Or perhaps Global cooling#Present level of knowledge; "Milankovitch-type calculations indicate that the present interglacial would probably continue for tens of thousands of years naturally in the absence of human perturbations." , , dave souza, talk 06:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Lead section has to be rewritten. It is not backed by proper cites.Urbansiberia (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Until a proper citation is added, the claim that mainstream scientists rejected Global Cooling has to be removed. Denying the scientific consensus of the early 1970s is not the appropriate way to combat climate deniers today. This page needs to uphold the highest standards of integrity. Urbansiberia (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not mandatory to have any cites in the lead, though sometimes it is advisable. See WP:LEADCITE and try again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a good citation in the body text, to meet any concern I've added it to the lead with the due summary of that text. For those misinformed about the state of climate science in the early 1970s, the source is a useful read. . . dave souza, talk 18:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"...was a conjecture..."... really? so now its not a conjecture? "...was a theory..." yeah, that scans... but "...was a conjecture..."? seriously. *cough*rewrite*cough*cough* how is it wikipedia' elite editor cliques fear the word theory so? I like a good laugh but not at the expense of an encyclopedias prose. -nobody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:836A:390:C923:F3D5:E78B:AA1C (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"how is it wikipedia' elite editor cliques fear the word theory so?" Please read Scientific theory. This does not qualify. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Global cooling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998.0/to:2008.0/plot/rss/from:1998.0/to:2008.0/trend
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998.0/to:2008.0/plot/uah/from:1998.0/to:2008.0/trend
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320054750/http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf to http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Newsweek

Newsweek Rewind: Debunking Global Cooling by Rob Verger on 5/23/14 might be useful. . . dave souza, talk 09:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global cooling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123101326/http://www.bbm.me.uk/portsdown/PH_061_History_a.htm to http://www.bbm.me.uk/portsdown/PH_061_History_a.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope13/foreword.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope27/preface.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Mini-Ice age

The report on the "mini-ice age" prediction has been deleted because it is garbage:

1. In the original paper [7], the author does not make predictions on Earth weather, but on sunspots.
2. Sunspots themselves, in terms of the magnitude of their radiant-energy deficit, have a weak effect on terrestrial climate.[8]
3. The reporter from ScienceDaily indulged in fantasy and POV when writing about an impending mini-ice age, completely unsupported by the research paper.

-BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Conjecture?

I just want to say that global cooling IS backed with evidence. (Sources: https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/why-i-am-afraid-of-global-cooling/ and http://notrickszone.com/2018/07/07/against-the-forecasts-sea-ice-grows-surface-temperatures-fall-troposphere-cools-polar-regions-stable/ ) You can even see it is happening now (ice caps are growing, polar vortexes, NH surface temperatures are dropping exponentially, ect) even during the 1970's Chris Roe234 (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

At first I just wanted to reply "what planet are you posting from?" but then caught myself.

Charles Eisenstein is a layman. His site is not a reliable source on climatology. He should try to get his stuff published in a peer-reviewed journal first. Then he has to convince the scientific community that he has a point (not even that he is right), and then we can quote him. So, please be patient until that happens. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree that's a nonRS source. Moroever, this article is not about the scientific workings of the climate system. Nor is it about the climate system's internal cooling feedbacks or cooling examples of external forcings. Those are covered in Climate change, Climate change feedback among other places. This article is about the attention in the public eye given to the minority side a scientific discussion that had its public crescendo in about the 1970s. It's about the public talking about one side of scientific discourse. If you want the science itself, see our main articles on Climate change and the various sub articles NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What was 100% put forward as science is retconned into "conjecture" by those who support the current era's assertions on climate science. Should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:141A:E537:1998:1855:2E27:E309 (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The science. Since this is a talk page I will mention sources, but not exact references:

Source is, of course, scientists: Dr Drew Schindell, Duke University, formerly head of global climatic modeling, NASA Goddard.

"polar vortexes..." Whom ever wrote these words knows *nothing* about the climatology, modeling, theorizing or measuring of that particular polar phenomenon. It was suspected by Shindell et al, that the stability of polar vortexes contributed to the destruction of ozone, and later proved and verified by scientists in Europe. Just to further the discussion, Dr Shindell found that the stability of the polar vortex, the temps dropped, and ozone was destroyed faster. The temps at 23,000 feet are not the surface temps, but about 4.5 miles. The correlation is left as the work of PhDs and serious scientists, not a few mis-quoting cherry picking theorists.

i.e. NewsAndEventsGuy is just reporting on the current state of the art, not speculating on pseudo-science.

and just to pour salt in the wound...shall I google that for you? 170.75.140.124 (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Is article title sufficiently specific?

When I Google or Google scholar this term, I get a lot of results of real global cooling that took place in Earth's history. As such, I wonder if the title is sufficiently precise. Any objections to me opening a RM to have this renamed global cooling hypothesis or global cooling conjecture? First one has slightly more google hits. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That there is some (not that much) confusion on Wikipedia as well, can be judged by wrong links to this article from Year Without A Summer, Piculet, Winter (?) and Dinosaurs (TV Series).. With global cooling being mostly linked via template, I cannot put a percentage on it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Support either suggested more precise title NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, FFS William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for latest TTC NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Does FFS really stand for what I think it stands for, William M. Connolley? = For fuck's sake? If so, is there something wrong with you? Can you not be nice to other editors? If not, then what does FFS stand for? EMsmile (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Repetition

Unless there were impacts from future human activity, they thought that serious cooling "must be expected within the next few millennia or even centuries"; but many other scientists doubted these conclusions.

In 1972, George Kukla and Robert Matthews, in a Science write-up of a conference, asked when and how the current interglacial would end; concluding that "Global cooling and related rapid changes of environment, substantially exceeding the fluctuations experienced by man in historical times, must be expected within the next few millennia or even centuries."

This text has two quotes which are appear to be from the same work. It would be good if the two parts could be carfeully mereged to preserve both meaning and sourceing.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC).

Please stop removing claims by the Boston Globe and the Guardian that an ice was was coming

I added the following content to the "1970s awareness" section:

On April 16, 1970, the Boston Globe published an article titled, "Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century."

On January 29, 1974, the Guardian published an article titled, "Space satellites show new ice age coming fast."

User:William M. Connolley removed the content and commented, "this isn't supposed to be a laundry-list of things." I think this content is relevant to the article. What do others here think? Walessoups (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

References

I agree with User:William M. Connolley, we already have a few examples illustrating the few press reports speculating about cooling. Adding a couple more doesn't really add anything to what is already there. --McSly (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with WMC also. The goal is to describe the gist and import of what happened, not to provide a bibliography nor index of every example NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh look! Those cites aren't to the named news organisations, they're to cei.org – now what interest does the Competitive Enterprise Institute have in this? How would a libertarian think tank known for climate change denial want to skew this topic? Just wondering, tho think WMC et al. have it about right. . . . dave souza, talk 20:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Also agreed. Citing a handful of articles from the 70s is undue, especially when we have much better sources that contextualize and summarize the history of journalism on the topic. Agree with wmc. Jlevi (talk)

Agree. No reason to remove these links - keep them in. The documentation from respected sources in the legacy media underscores the point that these claims were taken seriously at the time. 68.43.0.152 (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes reason. We should never link to a pseudoscientific organization such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, except to source what their opinion is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

At first I thought "well, they're just scanned images of the newspapers in question, seems legit to use them as citations of those papers." But then I realized they were highlighted, presumably by CEI. Wonder if there's a policy on this? To what degree does the excerpting/highlighting process make this a citation of CEI rather than the Globe/Guardian? Mateo LeFou (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific organizations regularly select data they like while hiding data they do not like. They cut off quotes, echoing the parts they like and dropping the parts they don't like. They quote people they like and ignore people they don't like.

The policy is simply WP:SOURCE: Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I am sure there were many thousands of newspaper articles published in 1970, but the CEI wanted to echo exactly these and make them available on the net because they transport an image they want to transport.

We already have sources that have not been pre-filtered by someone with a fringe-science axe to grind. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)