Talk:Global cooling

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

An article by Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.8.22 (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Global Cooling was "conjecture" where Global Warming is a full "theory"; makes perfect sense, to a master propagandist.98.165.15.98 (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sloppy writing or deliberate propaganda?

Since when did Global Cooling, the coming ice age apocalypse, get downgraded from theory to "conjecture"?

Wikipedia's article on Flat Earth lists it as a Flat Earth "model"; a "model" has more weight then "conjecture".

Wikipedia's article on Darwin's Pangenesis theory is listed as both hypothetical and theory, that turned out to be 100% false; it was Gregor Mendel's theories on genetics which panned out properly.

Wikipedia's article on the alchemy, "Alchemy is the science of understanding, deconstructing, and reconstructing matter," and, "philosophers theorized that the complexity of nature can be explained with a small set of elements, such as those of Empedocles: Earth, Fire, Water, and Air."

Wikipedia's article on Copernican heliocentrism lists heliocentrism as theory, even though it is quite innacurate compared to Newton's gravitational laws and Kepler's contributions. Why hasn't Copornicus been downgraded to "conjecture"?

Global Cooling is only decades old and has managed to be downgraded from theory to "conjecture" in such a short period of time, yet all these other examples which are hundreds to thousands of years old still maintain theoretical status. So what is it; sloppy writing or deliberate propaganda?98.165.15.98 (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

See Theory and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Do you have a concrete suggestion for improving this article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

By that definition, most scientists agree with heliocentrism, pangenesis, and alchemy, and how many other examples I haven't bothered to look up. Sure how about change wording from "Conjecture" to either Hypothesis or Theory. Or in order to match this article someone could go back to all of those thousands of wikipedia articles on science, religion, philosophy and add the qualifier "old" to all of the old theories.98.165.15.98 (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides, science isn't Democracy or Consensus, Science is Tyranny, Science is a Dictatorship. All you need is 1 man, that isn't necessarily a credentialed scientist, to be correct. If he is correct, he is correct, regardless of what the "Scientific Community" thinks.98.165.15.98 (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a tautology, and not a useful one. And it's not limited to science. If Joseph Smith was right, you will all burn in hell, no matter what the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic Church (or even Richard Dawkins, to list someone with a track record of being less wrong than most) think. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the irrelevant opinions relating to the process of scientific enquiry, I would suggest the questioner refer to the wiki pages where definitions are given for "theory", "hypothesis" and "conjecture". If these pages do not help you then maybe this page would help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_skills_acquisition. Ninahexan (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfair Article! This article does not properly convey the theories and philosophies of Global Cooling and Ice Age supporters. This is obvious banter of a Global Warming supporter. If I wrote this article, I wouldn't even mention Global Warming, it would be insulting to the Global Warming supporters! IMO, There is far more evidence supporting a coming Ice Age. Global Warming has been talked about since the 1960's, however, winters are getting colder and longer. Antarctica is growing bigger overall, thank you NASA, and the US Naval Weather Service is reporting more and more ice every year north of Canada. Tuvalu hasn't been buried underwater from 1990 like Global warming supporters threatened, but has seen it's sea level fall over 2 inches in a decade. The sun is now entering a cooling phase, thanks SOHO, and the Earth's magnetic fields are weakening, which magnetic reversals have been connected to multiple ice ages over millions of years. Even in the good old USA, the USDA's seed hardening maps from 1960 and 1990 drastically changed. The planting line moved further south, indicating cooling, not warming trends. I firmly believe that this article should reflect the real theories and sciences of Ice Age supporters like myself, and not the skeptical conjecture of Global Warming supporters, who write crap like "this guy worked on Global Cooling models, but later decided to work on Global Warming projects because it is more important". Oh please, this whole article is Global Warming drivel! See www.iceagenow.com for more articles and videos. FYI, Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with a solar and magnetic poll driven ice age, and the polar icecaps on Mars are made out of Carbon Dioxide. Stuguy909 (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wot, not green cheese? Despite any results of your magnetic poll, your statements clearly deviate from the findings of reliable sources. Ice age supporters may get their ice age in a few thousand years, but science shows that opponents of global warming are right to see that as the more immediate concern. Per WP:TALK this page is for proposing specific improvements to the article, backed by reliable sources. Vague drivel will properly be deleted as WP:NOTAFORUM. . . dave souza, talk 16:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And spruiking websites isn't what the discussion pages were created for.Ninahexan (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This article should be about global cooling.

I have no problem with a section indicating that, contrary to global cooling, there is evidence that global warming is occurring; however, this article is written such that nearly every other sentence discusses the topic of global warming.

The article should discuss global cooling, the theory, the media and public reaction, scientific basis and research, and why it has not occurred (and believed that it will not occur). Finally then, a section about global warming could/should be added.

As written, its so jumbled and interleaved that the essence of the global cooling topic is difficult to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkar3 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated text in Section 1 "Introduction ..."

In Section 1 "Introduction: General Awareness and Concern," the third paragraph is repeated almost entirely from the second paragraph. However, it includes a citation, whereas the text in the second paragraph does not. The citation should be moved to the second paragraph, and the third paragraph should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xphileprof (talk • contribs) 21:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Important new information

Materialscientist keeps deleting my addition of important information to this page. The is new research that shows global cooling has started in 2002 and is expected to continue for five to seven decades. The paper shows that the warming seen between 1950 and 2000 can also be explained by CFCs. This is a peer reviewed science paper and so it should be included. Peer reviewed papers are usable as sources. I think that they are also preferred. Why is it being removed? --Freddie1973 (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I don't know what motivates Materialscientist. In general, however, see Talk:Global_warming/FAQ, Q21. In this particular case, the Journal of Cosmology is not a conventional peer-reviewed journal, and not generally considered a legitimate scientific publication by the scientific community. It publishes all kind of crank science. The paper you refer to is very obviously questionable, and indeed has been refuted in a serious journal at least once.[1]. Per WP:FRINGE we do not include refuted fringe views. Finally, if you read the introduction you will notice that the term "global cooling" is not a generic term for cooling of the planet, but refers to a particular social phenomenon in the 1970s. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You say this article is about 1970s. Why then is there section 4 which talks about 1980s and 1990s? --Freddie1973 (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You overstate the significance of this other paper. All this demonstrates is that this is active area of debate. Science is not yet settled on these points and all legitimate scientific viewpoints should be presented. Qing-Bin Lu has many publications in many different journals and his research should be discussed somewhere on the encyclopedia. If this is the wrong place where else should it go? --Freddie1973 (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Freddie1973, the problem is that this paper was not published in a proper journal. Peer review is not fairy dust creating truth from paper. For example, there are peer-reviewed astrology journals. The peers are astrologers, of course. The Journal of Cosmology is going out of business, apparently because of a conspiracy by NASA to suppress the "truth". For Wikipedia, we need more than an article in a crank journal. What Lu's paper is trying to say, as the rebuttal points out, "challenges the fundamental understanding of polar ozone loss and global climate change," and as such we as an encyclopedia would need some evidence that other scientists are giving Lu's theory the time of day before we put it into an article. The thing is, it's not an active area of debate because, as the rebuttal points out, the data do not exist to support Lu's thesis when they should. There really isn't any disagreement in amongst climate scientists that CO2 is a bigger factor in global warming than CFCs.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

People are publishing papers. Other people are publishing rebuttals. How is this not active debate? This makes no sense. There is debate. I have been looking at Lu's work in Google Scholar. He has many papers in different journals too. His papers have been cited by others so this is not something others are not paying attention to. Who is writing rebuttals? They are giving Lu's work the time of day. It should be covered. But if this is not the proper place then where? Perhaps a new page? --Freddie1973 (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

According to google scholar, how many journal articles have cited this paper? One. And that one says it's got fatal errors (even I understand the problems, and I don't have university science training). If a paper in a crank journal says something that challenges fundamental areas of science, we'd need to see evidence of acceptance. There isn't any. The journal itself is not considered a reliable source. The reputation of the scientist doesn't count unless there's evidence of acceptance by at least some of his peers of this particular paper, as found in reliable sources. This applies to all science on Wikipedia. Science articles are supposed to represent the balance of scientific opinion, not the balance of public opinion. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing alternative theory to explain recent warming. This is not one paper. It is built on many such papers by this author and others. Perhaps we could develop a page to describe this theory based on the available papers and any rebuttals. Would that be allowable? This is not crank theory. It is legitimate science. How can I develop such a page? What needs to be done? --Freddie1973 (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so convinced by this paper (that appears in a journal best known for its obsessive attempt to prove that NASA has been hiding life on Mars), despite a rather more prestigious journal article basically ripping its claims about CFCs and warming/cooling to shreds?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction needs work

After stopping on this page and starting to read the content, I had to stop after only reading the Intro as there are many unattributed facts that appear to the uninitiated (me) as being hyperbole or original research. I started to flag the sections that were not cited as well as the bad references, but was immediately reverted because I was "damaging the article". This was not my intent and I honestly apologize for stepping on anyone. I think I did screw up one sentence, which after re-reading the IPCC article and finding the direct quote, I saw my error. I was in the process of undoing my edit when all my edits were reverted. So here are the issues as I see them.

The following are statements made in the Intro that are not attributed:

1) In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. - This is appears to be a puff statement that is not backed up.

2) The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate - this is probably true, but how do you verify it? Another puff statement.

3) The actual increase in this period was 29%. - reference for this statement?

4) Currently there are some concerns about the possible regional cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of thermohaline circulation - reference for this statement?

5) which might be provoked by an increase of fresh water mixing into the North Atlantic due to glacial melting. - again this is a statement of apparent fact that is not cited

6) The probability of this occurring is generally considered to be very low - again citation needed

These points are not made to gut the article or debunk global heating. They are made because someone who is not schooled on the intricacies of the science, like myself, would happen on this site and have no way of independently verifying the statements made. This is a key point of Wikipedia - no original research or opinion. Even if the items above are actual facts - and I don't know that - they need to be cited or they will give the impression of opinion.

In addition, the following two links are either broken or bad:

1) Erlich, Paul. "Paul Erhlich on climate change in 1968". Backseat driving. http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_backseatdriving_archive.html#112148592454360291. Retrieved November 17, 2005. - This reference needs to be fixed or deleted as it links to a blog. Blogs by definition are not approved references as it is inherently opinion - at least I've never seen a blog given the greenlight, so I could be wrong. If this blog then references to another site that has the actual article, then the actual source web page needs to be the reference.

2) World's temperature likely to rise; The Times; 22 June 1976; pg 9; col A - This reference needs to be fixed or deleted as the link ties back to Wikipedia's "The Times" page which is obviously not the "Pg 9, Col A" article. This reference could be a cricket box score for all we know which is why I had flagged it as broken.

The above items are legitimate challenges to the content or references and should be fixed in order to strengthen this page. Please read through all points and comment (or better yet, fix) as appropriate. As a side point, there are other examples of statement of fact with no attribution throughout the article, so the Intro is not the only guilty party.
I will hold off on ANY edits of ANY kind on this page until my above points are discussed. Thanks for your attention. Ckruschke (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I think you're being too picky. For example, you complain about 4 Currently there are some concerns about the possible regional cooling effects of a slowdown or shutdown of thermohaline circulation. But, you see the bit underlined in blue... yes, you guessed it. Now we could pointlessly repeat the content or the links of that article here, but it would be pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes - thank you for the condescension - I understand how Wiki links work and that I can follow the link to learn more about the shutdown of thermohaline circulation. However my point is that the sentence says Currently there are some concerns about the... shutdown of thermohaline circulation. So what you are saying is that one should goto the link, read through (maybe) the entire page, find the section that talks about the shutdown, find the reference (assuming there is one), and then follow it to figure out if this is a legitimate statement? IMHO this seems like an unneccesary and convoluted goat rope. However, I understand your point as well. Ckruschke (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

And another easy one: World's temperature likely to rise; The Times; 22 June 1976; pg 9; col A - you've completely misunderstood. That *is* the reference. The wikilink to the Times is just for convenience. But The Times; 22 June 1976; pg 9; col A is an exact reference to a piece of paper William M. Connolley (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree about The Times. For Ehrlich, I think the simple solution is to reference Ehrlich directly: Ehrlich, Paul (1968). The Population Bomb. Sierra Club/Ballantine Books. pp. 51-52. . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea User:Stephan Schulz. The reference as it was - AND pointing to the Wiki page - was not adequate.

Are you unaware that the lead of an article is intended to summarize key facts stated elsewhere in the article, and it is acceptable, even desirable, for those facts to be referenced in the body, rather than the lede? See WP:LEAD You said you “had to stop after only reading the Intro as there are many unattributed facts “. If the facts in the lede are not supported in the body, there may be an issue, but it is quite acceptable to omit references in the lede.Oops, I thought you were talking about the lead, I see you are talking about the intro.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You said “Blogs by definition are not approved references as it is inherently opinion “ That’s not true. Blogs are rarely acceptable references but there are exceptions. This isn’t one of them, so I agree with Stephan that the reference should be changed, but please don’t memorize that blogs are never acceptable.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct - I just haven't seen one. However, thanks for the clarification. IMHO the blog ref should be ditched and a stronger reference should be used. Either that or open up the page to someone else coming in and saying "what are you doing citing someone's opinion in a blog. Ckruschke (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

We're not citing the blog for opinion. We're using the blog as a convenient source for the text William M. Connolley (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - I was unfortunately at a place until just now where I could not read the blog. After pulling it up, I agree that it is perfectly fine as a reference so I withdraw that comment. Ckruschke (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I do support the need for a reference for the 29%--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree re the blog, but the ref should be changed to something like "<erlich ref> [text available at <blog>]" William M. Connolley (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)