Talk:Global cooling

Impartiality required.

This subject should be written about without reference to "consensus" because it's too hard to distinguish between fact and opinion in that regard. There were articles written at the time suggesting that cooling was happening, and articles which refuted that finding, but a judgement about whether one opinion was more correct than the other is unbefitting an encyclopedia article. A brief outline of the published papers on the subject is all that is required for this article.Landroo (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Global Warming is now the "accepted fact" and thus all other theories that appear to undercut it need to be stomped down... Ckruschke (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

a judgement about whether one opinion was more correct than the other is unbefitting an encyclopedia article - perhaps we should use the published literature that discusses this question? Oh, wait... William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, individuals and even scientists can believe that human activity is leading to global warming and also believe that a diminuation in energy from the sun can lead to periods of global cooling, like the Little Ice Age. Even Huffigton Post has a Dec 2013 article about it here. I'm more interested in the sun's effects myself, though don't have a lot of time to invest in any of these articles. Just hope that Wikipedia catches up with the facts and whichever theories prove to be true :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I see an editor removed my contribution writing spam promotion of nonRS blog, ed admits no intent of working on article. I think that's rather questionable: a) Trying to add a summary article of a viewpoint is not necessarily spam; b) HuffingtonPost probably usually isn't RS for science but it linked to this RS this Daily Mail one and referred to this BBC one and I'm sure lots more can be found that's relevant; c) just because one does not want to edit something after first dipping a toe in the water doesn't mean they won't decide to do so a short time down the road. In fact I was thinking later today that maybe if I can get a few Wiki problems out of the way, I'd catch up on some sunspot and climate change research and add a few high quality RS pieces of info to a few articles, including this one (or any one more relevant to today's climate and debate, will have to research). And seeing this rather questionable deletion of a talk page item certainly makes me feel like this may be necessary to make some articles NPOV on the topic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(A) None of your links are considered reliable sources, per WP:BLOG.

(B) The ones you cited distort the researcher's work because his own words are quite explicit

"Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age. Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. "

Quoting from this blog which was quoting from a true RS, the New Scientist's article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail uses a professional journalist; BBC's Paul Hudson is "weather presenter and climate correspondent for BBC Look North in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire." If the BBC and Daily Mail writers distorted the message, fine, disabuse us of the notion that they are correct and encourage us to use even higher quality refs. But please AGF and don't just remove material under questionable rationales. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.204.36 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2015 (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