Talk:Global cooling/Archive 6

Spiked

Why does this merit inclusion? Bertport (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't totally sure it did, but wanted it in the page history anyway. Spiked is rubbish, of course, but the report appears genuine. Scientifically it is wrong, but that isn't the point, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops sorry - I realise now that I linked to the spiked trash; I *meant* to link to the CIA report - now fixed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's much better. Bertport (talk)

Globle Freezing is diffrent from Goble Warming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.206.192 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic ray paper predicting global cooling

The paper is now out of prepress and was published, Physics Reports Volume 487, Issue 5, February 2010, Pages 141-167.

Please note this fair warning: I've gone to the trouble of actually chasing down the whole "impact", "impact factor" theory on reliable sourcing. WP:RS has been clarified disallowing that. If Physics Reports is an RS, the paper cannot suffer by any lack of citations from other papers. The paper is a reliable source. Please take a look at WP:RS if you haven't in a while before you rehash the mistaken reasoning that papers cannot be included until a waiting period has transpired. Since the paper is published in 2010, shall we put it in a 2010 section? TMLutas (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What makes this paper especially significant compared with all the other papers that have been published on related topics? Why should we give it special emphasis? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a paper that asserts global cooling in the present decade. That makes it worth mentioning. It's germane to the topic of this page. Papers regarding related topics should appear on those related pages. It was legitimately excluded because it was in pre-publish status at the time. That reason is no longer valid. TMLutas (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So I just read a good chunk of it; it talks about stratospheric cooling and mentions global cooling at the tail end. The reason for a waiting period is to gauge the reaction of the community. This article is written in a good but non-climate journal. It contradicts a lot of current climate research. As such, it is important to see whether climate scientists will embrace or reject it, per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. While I wouldn't be strongly opposed to including it (with the necessary caveat that it is in opposition to pretty much all the rest of the research on the topic), I would strongly suggest putting this on the back burner until we see its effect on the whole body of knowledge, which is what we should aim to represent. Awickert (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We went through this months ago the first time around. There is no legitimate rule or guideline supporting this position to wait. WP:UNDUE is not ground for exclusion but rather the addition of balancing text. The amount of balancing text is shrunk for specialized pages like this. WP:NOTNEWS simply does not apply at all for peer reviewed papers. In short, you're continuing a very boring song of raising rules that do not apply. Please read the (extensive) prior round dating late last year. The rule conforming behavior is to put it up early and pull it down when it's called for. I do question why it would even be pulled down if it is debunked because on that theory all the 1970s stuff would need to be pulled down. TMLutas (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Shall we put a sentence or two into the article from every relevant paper that gets published? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, one should until all global cooling positions are given at least some presentation. At that point you start picking and choosing the best ones. This is normally how Wikipedia works. This is not the global warming page. This is the global cooling page and on *this* page, it is relevant to deal with all peer reviewed papers (of which there are just a few) that assert global cooling with an appropriate amount of text asserting how minority the position is. That's what WP:UNDUE says and I suggest we follow it. TMLutas (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Boris: if we weighted this appropriately with the scientific literature that predicts warming instead of cooling, it would get one character in a hundred. But I'd not be unhappy with, "in a paper, someone says it will cool; they disagree with most everyone else". Awickert (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This sort of weighting is appropriate for a page on climate change or on the global warming page. This is a specialty page specific to the idea of global cooling and WP:UNDUE specifically maintains the weighting rules on these types of pages is much less severe. Please re-read the rule. TMLutas (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just reread what you wrote and realized you were more conciliatory than I thought. I'm suggesting a 2010 decadal section saying something along the lines of "there continues to be a small minority that asserts that global cooling has either started or is imminent" and cover the paper. I'd also like to get in the non-peer reviewed assertions into this section but I'm willing to do a stub that just has this paper as a starter. TMLutas (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Classic example of Global warming FAQ Q22. We don't incorporate every new paper on a subject, much less outliers that haven't yet been adequately evaluated. The impact does matter in deciding whether to include. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 08:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Global warming FAQ Q22 is wrong and should be struck. It was never uncontroversial (a key requirement of a FAQ point), actually has a link into the very discussion where its position is repudiated by the WP:RS community, and is living on only because I don't really feel like setting off a war over it right now. That position was always dubious and has been explicitly (instead of just implicitly) out of compliance with WP:RS since Feb 20 of this year. Since you, yourself took part on the losing side of the relevant discussion, (your last post was Feb 4 and you failed to respond to my Feb 7 response) and gave up the point back then, I'm finding it hard to understand how you can bring up Q22 as if the discussion you took part in and lost last month never took place. TMLutas (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Since writing the above, I changed my mind and there's a discussion on reworking/killing Q22 in the FAQ. TMLutas (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The global warming FAQ has been changed to rely on WP:WEIGHT. On the other hand, WP:RS 2.1(4) has been challenged so we're still at rules impasse. I'm not moving forward on this until the rule is settled. TMLutas (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

just an update to keep this issue alive, my current thought is that WP:RS 2.1(2) is a better lens to examine individual papers through rather than 2.1(4). This is under discussion and I'm still not moving forward with the edit until the rule settles. TMLutas (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

---

On 1972

1. The National Post is a newspaper observed at news kiosks (simply being a passerby from the US)
2. In The Origins of a “diagnostics climate center”[1] presentation(2004), NOAA says George Kukla's 1972 conference was "of singular importance ":

"There was a meeting of singular importance to our story. In 1972 a working conference of top European and American investigators was convened at Brown University to discuss past and future changes in climate.

“The Present Interglacial, How and When Will it End?” - January 1972, Providence, RI.

Its organizers were geologists George Kukla of the Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences, Prague and Robert Matthews of Brown.

They summarized their results in a Science report in October 1972. By that time Kukla had moved to the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory as a visiting scientist. "

3. On a "street level" view, global cooling appeared seemingly out of nowhere in the early-mid 70's. This article has addressed that situation very poorly. Before that we were busy choking on chemically based air and water pollution, wondering if the US was going to revolt over the Vietnam war before an all war with the USSR by crazed and crooked presidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.128.123 (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Street level is very exciting perhaps, but doesn't form a major part of this article. The NP isn't a RS for science or the history of science. You've misreprestented NOAA: they say the conference was of singular importance to our story, not just of bare sing imp. So: nothing wrong with mentionning the Kukla paper, but it doesn't belong in the lede, so I've moved it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Statisticians etc.

Statisticians reject global cooling - Environment- msnbc.com describes an analysis carried out for the Associated Press rather than published in a journal, but may be of interest. Joe Romm's Global cooling bites the dust: Hottest January followed by second hottest February. Now March is busting out. « Climate Progress gives links to potentially useful studies, such as Solar Cycle Progression and Prediction . . dave souza, talk 12:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-write needed?

I think the article should be re-written to specifically state the impact of solar events on global temperatures. Without such mention, the article is undoubtedly slanted and should be flagged as such. --BuLLitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.244.252.194 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 13 October 2009 Being familiar with wiki on these issues, I thought I'd just check out wiki and its nice to see another article locked down. Amusing. I thought it be a decade before the forces of conformity and dogma who loudly proclaimed their superiority whimper into the background. Now I am wondering. Could the sun actually show a blank face this far into cycle 24? I might have to do a little research into how the Dalton Minimum started ... was it gradual or with the Thames freezing solid suddenly one year ?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.159.33 (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't locked, only semi protected. You just need to register an account, if you wish to edit it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Global cooling vs Global colding

I'd like to specify the difference between "Global cooling" and "Global colding"...In this way we could specify the climatological significance of "Global cooling" and we could move in "Global colding" the actual meaning of global cooling --Chicco3 (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "Global Cooling":

In Climatology, Global cooling is the term used to indicate, in reference to the Earth's climatic history, the times of decrease in average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans, due to natural causes (solar cycles, Earth's movements, variations in atmospheric gases ,...). Very often the term is inappropriately used as a synonym for Global colding. The two expressions are both part of climate change's topic which itself includes the stages of global heating, glaciations, and changes in precipitation regimes.

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, [2]

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)

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.[3]. 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)

Introduction

Conjecture is used incorrectly here. From Wikipedia itself, "A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven."

I don't think we mean to say that Global Cooling is "unproven" but thought to be "true?" Do we?

As an aside, global cooling is a competing "theory" to global warming theory that presuposses that the sun, aerosols, orbital forcings and other factors might be about to push the world back out of an interglacial into a glacial period. Another aspect of this tihnking is that there is a lot more variability to the world's climate than what other proponents think and that geologic records show that we go through periods of warming and cooling every 30 to 60 years which fit into broader glacial and interglacial cycles. There are very eminent scientists like Don Easterbrook and others who subscribe to this and there is also lot of talk of solar cycle 25. Global Cooling is not "just" about what people were thinking in the 1970s. It's very much alive today. Just Google Global Cooling and we get quite a few articles from major news outlets citing respected scientists. Granted some of the writings can go so far into fringe science but there are reputables ones as well. There is no IPCC like body that studies global cooling and the theory is an certainly outlier theory but for all we know it might be proven correct in 50 years....plate tectonics was an outlier to the scientific consensus for a long time but Alfred Wegener was right in the end.

The topic is treated unfairly here as it is written and in the process of trying to water down the theory, with the word "conjecture" we've gone so far as to mis-define where this topic stands.

Perhaps a rewrite of the intro is in order to make this more balanced? Let's discuss here.174.49.84.214 (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your tense is wrong: the lead says "Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s..." which is correct: it was briefly thought, by some but not all scientists of the time, to be the likely outcome. The IPCC studies global cooling: it's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which includes cooling as well as warming. The current science and current findings indicate overall warming: sufficient volcanic eruptions or nuclear war could shift the balance to cooling, but at present there's no evidence that such change will take place. Of course Wegener was wrong in that the continents don't drift, they're pushed by plate tectonics. All of which is in line with the current article: please show sources to support any changes you propose. . . dave souza, talk 17:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

my tense is not wrong, the tense of the article is wrong. Don't have an outline. If and when I do, I'll post it here so we don't have an edit war. I know there are a lot of stakeholders on this. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Mixed / little

I've reverted some anon error [4] that didn't get reverted then William M. Connolley (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. One thing; we seem to cite the TAR, presumably AR4 gives a more up to date assessment? There has also been recent research, judging by this news release, but perhaps to early to include. . . dave souza, talk 20:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

TAR is very dated and even AR4 is showing its age. The sun is becoming more of a factor as our understanding increases with research from SORCE and other sources but the level of scientific understanding is still "low." The article you reference is one of several out there that shows the field is going through a rennaissance. Take a look at this [5]. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Easterbrook today enjoys "little" support for his theories and he likely couldn't get on the front page of TIME with a global cooling spread. Back then there was more than "little" support because we had front page stories on this. That much is clear. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure "little" is the correct term, everyone from Newsweek to National Geographic was writing main-page articles about the coming ice age. If a TIME Magazine journalist today tried to write that we were 1/6 of the way towards an ice age, 3 phone calls to scientists would probably "kill" that story before it got started yet back then these things made it to the front pages. Nobody killed the Newsweek Story back in 1974 so....there must've been more than a "little" support both in scientific circles and journalism.174.49.84.214 (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You're mixing up journalism with the scientific community, which is where we say there was little support. Journalists sell stories rather than accurately reflecting scientific views, evidence from peer reviewed literature is relevant. By the way, the Daily Mail, The Australian and Fox News ran a story a few days ago about the coming ice age. Wildly unreliable sources, of course. . dave souza, talk 21:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully I'm not. Yes Daily Mail, Australian, and Foxnews published their stories recently but the opposition came right back out with their responses, clarifying points and engaging in opinion journalism - which is largely prevalent. By your standards then back in 1975 there should've been a backlash against the Newsweek story with the opposition coming out. Show me the 1975 backlash to the Newsweek story. Those backlash simply don't exist. There was no widespread repudiation of the Newsweek stories. The same wordsmithing is going on here btw. Little is the wrong word. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Another example, the times atlas recently published a wildkly erroneous map of Greenland. Within hours, the scientific community was up in arms. Why, because there was little support for the outlandish claims. If in 1975 the stories published enjoyed "little" scientific support like the Times Atlas cartography, where was the scientific community cryout? It didn't exist because there wasn't "little" support. There was perhaps, "mixed" or other kinds of support but not "little." Little support would've ellicited backlash from the scientific community.174.49.84.214 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet another example, Cosmos Episode 4 Ice Age - by Carl Sagan where he talks about the coming ice age in part due to albedo effects in 1980. "Little Support?" I think we're looking for a different word. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You exaggerate how prepared scientists were to respond to press exaggerations at the time, or indeed to overblown claims by Sagan in what presumably is a TV programme. We show more academic publishing, what peer reviewed studies can you point to? . . dave souza, talk 23:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Scientists have never been a timid crowd. I was the one who asked you to provide proof that there was backlash to global cooling - there obviously was not at the time and by 1980 even the preeminent popular scientist of the time (carl sagan) was doing documentaries on it. Also, obviously if Newsweek, Carl Sagan (popular scientists) of the time are putting this front and center - it was the predominant thinking of the time not for one year but for multiple years during the late 60s, 70s, and early 80s. You show me backlash from scientists documenting their dissent and I'm willing to consider that this wasn't mainstream thought back then. Until then, the overwhelming evidence is that global cooling was very "mainstream" and supported by the popular scientists (Carl Sagen) of those times. It's dishonest to state that this was a "fringe" thinking with "little" support when the preponderance of the evidence shows that it was "mainstream" thinking. Based on that, this article is grossly in error and does not accurately reflect the history of what was going on back then. (I don't care that the theory was right or wrong but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to act as a revisionist propagandaist). It was what it was: a mainstream movement and theory that has largely fallen out of favor under AGW - which is just fine. But to try to erase it like the MWP, is academically and journalistically criminal. This is a clear example of what is wrong with Wikipedia - it turns history into propaganda and that's just plain wrong. Also if you don't know what Cosmos was, perhaps you shouldn't be editing this article....most of us lived through that period. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, your conjecture is wrong (WP:OR) - see: Peterson, Thomas & Connolley, William & Fleck, John (September 2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9). American Meteorological Society: 1325–1337. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

We should not use the word consensus -- it's just propaganda jargon. But the mainstream journalism reported for a decade the concern and scientists did not seriously refute it. The WMC bulletin you cite is self serving. So, you are wrong Kim 174.49.84.214 (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - on the one hand (yours) we have unsourced assertions and synthesis and on the other hand we have a rather reliable source stating the opposite of you. Guess which one Wikipedia has to go with? Do come up with equally reliable sources that support your stance. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the article? We're talking about numerous books, multiple TV documentaries, and countless magazine and newspaper articles over a period of over a decade highlighting the coming ice age! What synthesis? These are facts. It was mainstream. Read the article. It's the tab that reads ARTICLE at the top left of this page right next to TALK. This global cooling was mainstream and the scientific community was ok with it because the world had been cooling. These are facts, not synthesis. Therefore the intro is wrong and seeks to minimize the popular and scientific thinking of the time, regardless of what WMC would like us to believe with his bulletin.174.49.84.214 (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In the article they are used as examples - and they are not "countless magazine and newpaper articles", they are in fact quite finite. We give 2 examples in the article, so "countless" is your own personal WP:OR. I'm wondering what other article you are reading, since we aren't covering "multiple TV documentaries" (in fact we cover none). You are confusing anecdotal evidence, with statistical evidence. The WP:OR you commit here, is to assume "there are multiple, therefore it must have been mainstream", which is not a given. Do a statistical analysis of the subject, get it published and come back... otherwise all you are doing is synthesizing, which is not allowed on WP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The way word "scientific consensus" is thrown around in the climate debate, it doesn't have any real meaning, or rather it means something like, "the people who agree me." If you want to know what the consensus is on the shape of election orbitals or the effect of gravatation on space, you would not take a poll, nor would you pull out 600 journal abstracts, as Oreskes famously did. You'd look in standard scientific references, for example Van Nostrand's or McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia. Kauffner (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, you would not look in Newsweek, National Geographic, or the WSJ. However, your assertion about scientific consensus is blatantly wrong, and of course an encyclopedia as a tertiary source is of limited use. . . dave souza, talk 06:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The "consensus" of people who looked at the temperature records up to 1970s showed that the world had been cooling. So there was no dissent from scientists. Therefor, that led to multiple books, multiple magazine articles in prominent rags, multiple scientific documentaries to come out and "alert," nay dare I say it, "alarm," the public to the coming ice age. It was mainstream. Much like what is going on now only from the AGW side today. Yes, this history is inconvienent to the AGW crowd and poses an interesting cautionary tale. But it's history, it did happen. It should be correctly documented as having happened, not watered down by the AGW crowd and if we look at most of the contributors on here, they are largely green activists -- it should be correctly reflective of the period regardless of whether it was right or wrong and only time will tell on that front.174.49.84.214 (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry - do you have any references for all of this? Something that isn't a synthesis, such as the one you make here. Sprinkling your argument with quite a bit of vitriol and conspiracy theory, doesn't make your argument have more weight btw. In fact it almost certainly ensures that you will be marginalized - so stop it please. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do, click on the ARTICLE page and you'll see all the references. 36 at last count. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy in In Search Of, Season 2 episode 23 devoted an episode to the coming ice age saying, "climate experts now believe that the next ice age is on its way." What experts? they don't say. It's hilarious, highighting the winter of 1977, the worst winter in a century, struck the United States. Sound familiar? Of course Season 3 started with alien abductions but that's neither here nor there -- legacy from the Roswell scares of the 1950s ;-). This culture of fear of global cooling was real and prevalent back in the 1970s. The list goes on and on and we can dig the stuff up and it really wasn't completely drained until the master Carl Sagan tried to do poetry to it against the background of exposions, frozen tundras, icebergs collapsing, and images of the pale blue dot. It's all the same stuff. We should at least document it so that people 1,000 years from now can laugh at us and the idiocracy we had built. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Oh wow - did he really? And what does that mean? That Roswell is real and mainstream as well?</sarcasm> --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a bot Kim. Roswell is certainly ingrained in the psyche of at least American culture as are alien abductions and wikipedia has an expansive article on it. Alien abduction. If you'll notice, the article does not start off by saying that the scientific consensus is that abductions are fabrications. Imagine, the alien abduction article on Wiki is more forgiving to the abduction claims than this article is to global cooling even as a historical narrative. Tells you how far off the rocker you guys are here. Should we go to the alien abduction article and edit it to start off by saying that alien abductions are a conjecture? I mean, they can't possibly be real right? 174.49.84.214 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical context

This issue of what's "consensus" and what is "scientific" is a distraction. The point is that same group of people who were promoting global cooling in the 1970s suddenly changed their tune around 1978 and starting promoting global warming. Kauffner (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Your point is wrong: read the article, and Weart's history. . dave souza, talk 08:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed remark
K knows the WP:TRUTH. He does not need to read the article and least of all does he need facts William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, Stephen Schneider was just a guy who wrote an obscure paper about global cooling back in 1971. Nothing to see here, move along. All through the 1980s and 1990s, Schneider was one of four to five people quoted in AGW news accounts as a kind of man-on-the-street scientist, the Greg Packer of climate science. Kauffner (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was sadly lacking in sources and balance: improvements point out that Schneider's errors about cooling were pointed out within six months, and he himself published corrected figures in 1975. As for Kauffner, his or her unsourced opinions have no validity whatever. . dave souza, talk 10:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This way of telling the story removes the all the political context. The green issue in 1971 was the supersonic transport project. Schneider's theory was that SST would trigger an ice age. The project was canceled later that year, so his paper's political usefulness was short-lived. It's a good thing he corrected himself. It might have been embarrassing if Schneider had still been prophesying doomsday when the Concorde went into service in 1976. As far as sources go, you've already turned up your nose at Van Nostrand's and McGraw Hill. Kauffner (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, assertions without reliable sources. Naming some volume you like doesn't meet WP:TALK requirements, please provide proposals for improvements with citations including page numbers or links. . dave souza, talk 09:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet more pointless chit-chat
Golly, more allegations against me. I'll have to make a list. Kauffner (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC) "Who are these allegators?" he snapped. . . dave souza, talk 15:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC) A dave souza without a personal attack. I guess these things happen from time to time. Kauffner (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Pointless chit-chat, no intent to improve article

Kauffner makes a fair point and WMC should apologize for attacking him. I apologize for any aggressive posting on my part, I'll try to be fairer. In the defense of the scientists, they were trying to wrap their arms around what was (and is) going on with our climate. Largely I agree, scientists broadly changed their tune (when the facts change, people change their minds). The concern here is that this article seeks to revise the scientific and popular thinking of the time. The preponderance of the journalistic evidence (and it's journalists who are tasked for better or worse to chronicle), is that there was mainstream thinking that we were headed into an ice age. Why is this so difficult for some people on here to accept. It's not a criminalization of AGW. It's what people were thinking back then. Does it raise the "fallibility" of scientists, yes but that's ok too. We are not dealing in absolutes here. The Global Cooling theory came and went and now the AGW theory is here and tomorrow it might be gone. Science continues to progress. Why is it that in all other scientific fields we can question everything including as Gaiver says, the mass of the proton over time, but AGW is immutable fact with 100% confidence and Global cooling was now mere conjecture. No. it wasn't mere conjecture and Newsweek, Time, Cosmos and numerous other sources tell us that it wasn't and if newsweek and time were talking about it, you know it was in the evening news channels to. If scientists disagreed, there is little record of them expressing their dissatisfaction with what mainstream media was promoting (unlike the times atlas fiasco) So let's stop this watering down of this article and represent it for what it was. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Kaffner's assertion was wrong and contradicted good sources, as WMC indicated. Your arguments are at best original research on the basis of your own evaluation of a number of primary sources which you don't actually provide as references. Not acceptable, see WP:SOAP . . . dave souza, talk 17:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC) From what I've read it seems that the scientific study of climate change was a lot more vibrant back in the 1970s. Someone proposed a theory or a thought and in short order, gaps were found and theories emerged and knowledge improved. This isn't refutation that we're seeing with cases like Stephen Schneider. What we are seeing is the "scientific process" at work. This article makes it look like he was "refuted." If we had a sentence for every scientific paper that was expanded upon or refined, we'd have a very big article. And, his initial findings contributed to the global cooling alarmism of the era -- going all the way up to the New York Times. At least back then it was ok to put forth a theory and not be attacked merely for where the data had taken you. I think that is the case in point here: that the field was evolving. NOT that they were mostly closet ProAGW people as this article as it is written would like to lean us towards. 174.49.84.214 (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC) If you've read it in a secondary source, please provide citations to that source and proposals for improvemnts to the article, per WP:TALK. . . dave souza, talk 17:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Weart

Weart, S. (2011). "Global warming: How skepticism became denial". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 67: 41. doi:10.1177/0096340210392966. p. 43 re the early '70s – "Noting that in the natural course of events the planet was due to settle over the course of the next few thousand years into an ice age, a few scientists speculated that pollution would block sunlight and accelerate the process." Further down the page, "By the late 1970s scientists found good reasons to dismiss the theory, never widely credited, that pollution would bring a rapid global cooling." . . . dave souza, talk 18:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Modern understanding in lead

An editor has twice removed a section describing the current scientific status of this view. I think this is critical to understand the article. I restored it once, but would be open to discussion here. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with the mod, I don't see how an IPCC policy document in any way relates to the subject. --212.159.68.116 (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Since no "IPCC policy document" is mentioned, would you care to clarify? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Global dimming

The relationship to global dimming needs to be incorporated in the article. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest that incorporation. Ckruschke (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

GD is part of the modern explanation for the cooling seen then. Incidentally, the "1990s" section is a bit horrible. It should be hived off / combined with the THC shutdown page William M. Connolley (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Skep Sci image

About the Skep Sci image I restored in this edit, the relevant policy shortcuts are WP:OI, WP:CALC and maybe others. When you click on the thumbnail the file page itself opens. There you will see the published paper that contains the data shown by this image. Although SkepSci blog posts are indeed not RS as sources in and of themselves, in this instance SkepSci simply turned data in a published RS into graphical form. In WP:OI our policy explicitly encourages wikipedians to do the same thing.

I do not believe our MOS requires us to redundantly repeat again the RS citation in the image caption, and if we did that for all the images I know of the result would be extensive WP:CLUTTER. But if you wish to copy.paste it from the main image file I do not object. As for SkepSci, their CC license is with attribution. The safe legal thing to do is to always list the image author even under thumbnails. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

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)