Talk:Global cooling

2000's

Bill and Kim, why is there no 2000's section ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.237.36 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a proposed beginning for a 2000's section

Perhaps the 2000’s section could reference this data to show NO Global Warming (possibly even cooling) in the 2000’s decade. 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 161.216.57.90 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about theories of Global Cooling. If global warming is not occurring, that does not equate to global cooling and isn't relevant to this article.

The first graph you refer to does not isolate data in the 2000s from earlier dates, so "cherry picking" this data would be original research. The second graph is about CO2, combining this data with any other would be original synthesis. Original research and synthesis is not permissible on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please give us your proposed 2000's section, or are you locked in Bill and Kim's orbit ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.233.58 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one proposing any such section. If you believe that there is cited, relevant and notable information that merits such a section then please present it. Without afore mentioned original research and synthesis. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What still no 2000's section, whats the hold up (other than a lack of warming) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.230.219 (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The decade 2000-2009 was the hottest in the direct record - see [ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif here] for a visual representation. You may have been misled by bad journalism Into believing something else. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Add Hubert Lamb, the "ice man"

Just came across this at Hubert Lamb: He "became known as the "ice man" for his prediction of global cooling and a coming ice age", cited to Michael Sanderson (2002), The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, p. 285, ISBN 9781852853365, [1]

I didn't pursue it, but Lamb's prominence in this period suggests this should be part of our article. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want him to be "prominent", you'll need to find more than one rather obscure source William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

More your field than mine, but I thought Lamb was one of the leading climatologists of the 1960s and 70s. No? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Lamb is definitely prominent. But the "ice man" bit isn't clearly so William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looks a possibility to me, note that Lamb changed his view after the summers of '75–'76, and decided global warming was a more imminent issue. Think it was that year that drought shifted the foundation of a music block I did at Bushey Meads School, with the hard clay soil shrinking towards the roots of a large oak. More significantly, we mention Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider's '71 paper, but according to Pearce's volume pp. 25–28, in 1974 Schneider found less pollution / more CO2 warming effect than he'd allowed, recalculated and retracted his earlier warning. Worth checking to see if we can find a better source for that. . . dave souza, talk 22:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interview. It's scanned and I cannot find a citation. It sounds like him. The notable part is his apparent prediction in the early 1970's that the remainder of the century would see a cooling trend in anticipation of the coming ice age. Unfortunately I don't have the source. --DHeyward (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Bilderberg conference...

This conference is referenced 3 times, in the date list, and the present knowledge section. That seems like overkill, if it is worthy of comment at all - the linked items seem more like gossip.

In particular, it is entirely possible that the Bilderberg agenda item refers to something entirely different, given Bill Gates' involvement with 'cloud whitening' research; i.e. it might refer to the deliberate use of technology by humans to counter the effects of AGW, rather than the natural process of cooling at the end of an interglacial. If that is the case, then it doesn't belong in this article at all. The geoengineering article would be more appropriate. --Kevin Cowtan (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I deleted two of the references, leaving only the one in the intro. The comment in the intro was expanded by explaining the ambiguity. I'll leave it to another editor to decide whether that reference is worth keeping.

Some bloggers are claiming that the original source, http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org, is a fake or the work of a publisher with a book on Bilderberg. Against this, the attendee list seems to match journalistic evidence. --Kevin Cowtan (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the entire thing, since the references we have are far too vague for any useable material. As you say, it isn't even possible to tell what they were actually talking about William M. Connolley (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole's article on the subject seems reliable. One would expect that the Telegraph would be able to fact check with one of the CEO's press offices to confirm that this page listing them as part of the Bilderberg steering committee is official and correct. Any talk about the very secretive Bilderbergs is going to be quite general, nothing more specific than on this or that conference, they talked about some topic or other. That's the way they have always worked.

Furthermore there is a listing of all the conference topics dating back to the fifties at this page on the same site. If Kevin Cowtan's construction that global cooling is an ambiguous way to say geoengineered cooling is correct, you should be able to see other topics that are similarly constructed. I've gone through it and not found any.TMLutas (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh good grief, don't be ridiculous. Delingpole is reliable for nothing at all. "one would expect that..." means nothing. All this is mere speculation, which I shall remove William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to William Connolley's comment directly preceding this comment, the Delingpole article is surely reliable as a source for the claim that Bilderberg 2010 agenda contained the words "global cooling". What Delingpole actually said about this in the rest of his article is neither here nor there. If you don't like the Delingpole reference, there was also a reference to The Guardian as well. (Again, the reference is for the sole purpose of establishing that "global cooling" was on the agenda at Bilderberg 2010.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.131.15 (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You're relying on blogs speculating about the secret agenda of a meeting that does not publish its agenda or its discussions. Not reliable sources for fact, merely sources for the opinions of the authors which are insufficient to establish anything. . . dave souza, talk 09:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

From Bilderberger website: "The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations." -> http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meeting_2010.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.47.187 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Please disregard this last entry I wrote. Thx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.47.187 (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers, books, exaggeration

In this edit Rendahl makes the following change:

Before:

This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.

After:

This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention in the early 1970s.

The removed and added portions of the above are highlighted by my bolding.

The edit summary is: "Edited phrase to eliminate original research."

However the text removed is not original research. It is adequately supported by comparison of the conclusion of the scientific reports and the reports in newspapers, magazines, books and periodicals which are presented side-by-side in this article. --TS 09:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have reverted. The lede is supposed to summarise the article, and I cannot see how the version taken out oversteps the mark into original research. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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)