Talk:Global cooling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Meteorology
 This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.


Contents

[edit] William M. Connolley

In reference to the topic I just brought up "why is this article full of spin?". and your reply.

I was not asking you for your opinion on these disputed words. How arrogant of you to think that your opinion suddenly makes the words okay.

My arguments cannot be disputed, the words are opinion-based and should not be in an encyclopedia. LET THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!

You asked me what i think they should be changed to. I don't think you understand, I want them removed, not replaced with other opinion words.

I am not an anti global-warming nut and in fact fully believe in the dangers of climate change, but I hate this wikipedia hierarchy, ruled by hardcore fundamentalists, who have gained power in the wikipedia system, allowing for what amounts to censorship.

(personal attack deleted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbiddle (talk • contribs) 07:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see your point. "Conjecture" is in no way disparaging. The number of scientifc papers supporting global cooling is rather small, and several of those few that do discuss the topic also include a caveat that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are likely to dominate the possible negative forcing. Finally, please follow Wikipedia etiquette and comment on content, not on the contributor. William's contributions are valid because they usually represent current understanding of the scientific community, and because they are supported by reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz 13:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The "number of scientific papers??????????" Whats that got to do with anything? Are you claiming that you cannot distinguish between scientific evidence and the sentiment of scientists? All extant scientific evidence points to cooling. And to neglible net warming from industrial-CO2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see your point as well. For example, the use of the phrase 'not significant' follows from Stephan Schulz's point about there being very few papers supporting this hypothesis. I will abide by WP:AGF but your comments towards Dr. Connolley were harsh. I, for one, highly value his contributions. Finally, do not forget that most established editors are, as you say, "sad enough to live in wikipedia." So, if you want to have friends around here I suggest you stop the personal attacks. Brusegadi 23:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Both of you have just said that you fail to see my point. I can't debate with you if you fail to understand my point.Johnbiddle (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that you explore alternative explanations for your observations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This article really does suffer from a severely biased point of view. The fact that William M. Connelly is proudly an environmentalist activist doesn't help matters. It would be as if a member of MUF wrote the bio of Carl Bildt's oil schemes in Sudan. If you're going to make a Wikipedia article, you need to keep it neutral, not try and press forth your political agenda. That's what personal blogs are for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.8.90 (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. This article reflects the balance of reliable sources. William may be many things, but one of those is a published scientist and acknowledge expert in the field of climatology. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Being a "published scientist" guarantees nothing, let alone neutrality, especially when said scientist proclaims explicit political goals. Noam Chomsky was also a published scientist and writer, but I'd hardly support him editing a Wikipedia article dealing with, for instance, US foreign policy. Would you? To further complicate matters, the indisputable bias of the article is compounded by weasel words such as declaring books favoring global cooling as being, I quote, "melodramatic". One wonders how fast one would find oneself censored labeling a present-day work deprecating our environmental practices with the same adjective. Quite frankly, I find this practice of intellectual bias and censorship, at best, detrimental to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.8.90 (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] link

I was wondering if anyone else would like to see a link on here to a site that talks about the future comming of an ice age. iceagenow.com Is this guy for real, i don't know. But he does have alot of information an articles from others experts. I think it is a valid web site and gives something to the talk about global cooling. Please post if you like to see me at the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.24.2 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a WP:RS, and its not notable. I don't think we need it here. --Stephan Schulz 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Its junk William M. Connolley 19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I personally wouldnt mind to hear both sides of the argument but that wouldnt fit in with the agenda of some users. I suppose you could try but you will be censored.Johnbiddle (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's totally unfair to dismiss a self-published book written with no editorial oversight that has received zero attention in the mainstream press or scientific community, authored by a person with no training or experience whatsoever in the field. We're wicked that way. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Global cooling books will never have mainstream support, because they do not fit in with the current economics of the scientific community. Saying that, I believe books about global cooling should have a place/link in an encyclopedia article entitled "global cooling"! Johnbiddle (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


This web site is not just about a book, but also contains climate data and links to other articles including those in the mainstream press —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.213.92.64 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] global coolong

dr a suliman - told us as a physics teacher: global warming - ice caps melt and more liquid water - more of a force need to pull this from the moon - tilt of axis of earth change - therefore global cooling for six months on one half and heat normal on the other side of hemisphere

makes sense to me, he publishes it in the new scientist magazine soon, look out and incorportate this with regards to him . —Preceding unsigned comment added by T saston (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milankovitch Cycles

Excuse me. Why did William M. Connolley remove the external reference that pointed to information on Milankovitch Cycles? He said: "rv: there is nothing wrong with it, but its unescessary: we have a perfectly good MF article and its linked". However, 2 points: 1st, what I added was an external reference (to a NOAA article), not an internal link to another Wikipedia article; and 2nd, the existing external reference (#24) for Milankovitch Cycles is bad -- click on it and you get this: "We are sorry - there has been an error processing your request. Please return to the Nature home page." So why the heck is it an issue to add a good, up to date, external reference?????? SunSw0rd (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no point in it, as I said. If your link is useful, add it to the MF article which this article links to. We should link within wiki to things we have good articles on, and put ext links to those things in there. We don't put in ext links to GW, or IPCC, or aerosols - for the obvious reason. MF is no different. Re the broken link: thanks for noticing, I did what you could have and looked it up via the DOI and fixed it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. SunSw0rd (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

If the article purports to be neutral I think it has failed. More or less every single line is second-guessed and undercut by its author. It might as well be a piece on medieval folklore, judging by its dismissive tone.

Since it is obvious that global warming exists - at least when viewed over millennia, I think all can agree on that - then the corollary, global cooling must also exist. Per definition. I think the topic deserves more honesty in writing than the current piece.

Here is a recent link of interest to those with inquiring minds: http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp

Actually, it might be better to combine both GW and GC under one header called "Global Temperature Cycles" - or something like that, you get the idea.

Thomas (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaii Reporter

How could this "Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way" article from Hawaii Reporter be worked into the article? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. It has nothing to do with the historical meme, and Marc Morano is a political shill for Jim Inhofe, not a remotely useful source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently came across this link: http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm It's no where to be found in this article. Given that there is cold, hard data that global cooling exists, why is this article still biased in the other direction? 198.68.16.40 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved your comment here because the Hawaii Reporter article cites this Daily Tech article. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The dailytech blog is not a remotely reliable source. All except the very shortest-term temperature indicators are up. But I find it somewhat ironic that the very same people who used to claim that a century or so of climate data is insufficient to detect a warming signal now see cooling after half a cold winter... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
So are you against including the link and the data it references (which is from a reputable source, while the blog may not meet your standard of being a reputable source) because it doesn't mesh with your idea of 'global warming'? From your sentence, that's what it sounds like. 68.222.160.154 (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm against including it because most of it is plain wrong and in conflict with the considered opinion of the scientific community, and because it is almost entirely non-notable. Being unreliable and in conflict with well-established science, there is no reason to include it on its merits. It also is not connected with the particular theory known as "global cooling" (which by now taken on a secondary role as a proper name, not just a descriptive term), so it is also off-topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As a National Post article about the data admits, "one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades." Assuming just for the sake of argument that the evidence for global warming is exaggerated, exaggerating evidence for global cooling as a response to that makes no sense. Two wrongs don't make a right. The Squicks (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedic entry -- viewpoints about 'global cooling' must be included for this to be a complete entry. Since there is scientific data (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html) that shows the earth is currently cooling, it should be included. Whether or not you or I agree on the issue of Global cooling is moot -- what isn't moot is that Wikipedia exists to be an expansive encyclopedia, and there is no justice done when data is ignored. Gortok (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That article is a popular press scare piece and quite irrelevant. No, on Wikipedia we are not interested in data, but in knowledge. If there really is a persistent cooling trend that is popularly referred to as "global cooling", then we can consider adding this to the article. But we do not add every short-term trend, or we bury the relevant information in mountains of irrelevancies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] film

The ceasing of thermohaline circulation in the world's oceans caused the rapid global cooling in the scientifically unfounded film The Day After Tomorrow.

The film is unscientific garbage, as its article notes. Why mention it here at all? The Squicks (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Only because people may have heard of it. I'm ambivalent William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in favor of removing it. It would be like mentioning skynet in an article about distributed computer systems. The Squicks (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IP disputes article

"This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Scientific consensus is that the Earth has not cooled, but undergone a period of global warming in recent centuries."

This is an outrageous statement. It starts with a flat out lie and ends with an attempt to muddy the waters. All extant scientific evidence points towards future cooling. There is no evidence whatsoever that we will continue to warm. Glaciations keep coming back and they last a very long time. The scientific evidence shows that nothing has changed and this cycle will continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is another outrageous statement: "The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate..." Carbon dioxide has no proven or known effect on climate. Ergo a sensible person would assume that the feedbacks were overwhelmingly negative and that such effect as did exist were very slight indeed. Now come up with some evidence for substantial industrial-CO2-induced warming or change the article. We cannot let this worthy project be compromised by emotional or political committment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PDO and AMO

I think maybe there should be a section referencing the Pacific decadal oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Reason -- recent articles by NASA that the PDO has shifted to its cool phase, and articles including a report in Nature that the AMO has shifted to a cool phase. The convergence of these two together may shift the Northern hemisphere into a cooling cycle for at least the next decade. Comments? SunSw0rd (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Belongs on GW, or Cl Ch, but not here. This is a different page. Beware of grossly misleading interpretation of the current Nature stuff (assuming you mean what I mean [1]) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Global Cooling

Whats up with the recent global cooling? [2] Should this merit a mention or is this junk science? Bobchen (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's on FoxNews, so its safe to ignore. For some related discussion, see above, in the section strangely enough called "Hawaii Reporter". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global Cooling History as a Counter-Argument to Global Warming

I looked up this article to see if anything was mentioned here about the numerous conservatives who will point to the "global cooling" theories to support their claim that global warming is a farce. I remember one very-convincing guest on Jon Stewart's show hawking his book that lambasted global warming as just the next environmentalist scare tactic, and he (falsely) claimed that "all" of the scientists in the 70's were warning the world about global cooling. Should something be added about global cooling's role in the global warming debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Togamoos (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right,we should. I'm a bit surprised we don't so far William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Predicting something...

Article quote: "[...] Rasool and Schneider considered global cooling a possible future scenario, but they did not predict it."

I'm amazed by this quote. Rasool and Schneider said, in simple words, if the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere increases, temperature is very likely to decrease in near future. Currently, the IPCC says, in simple words, if the amount of CO2 increases, temperature is very likely to increase in near future. Where's the difference? Mankind stoped poluting aerosols and climate did not cool. If mankind stops polluting CO2 and climate does not warm in the next 50 or 100 years, will the same people who wrote this article right here argue that science never predicted global warming, only considered it a possible scenario? This is ridiculous.

Seems fair enough. The IPCC doesn't make predictions either William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW: There are a couple of "cooling papers" from the 1970s that are, for some reason, not mentioned in this article (like [3], [4] and [5]). —Bender235 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your first predicts nothing. 2nd I'm sure we discussed before here; basically its NN. Dunno what 3 says - what quotes from it do you like? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the fact that very few climate papers (I choose my words carefully) predict anything, the papers I mentioned included. They detect something and try to explain it, whether be warming or cooling or drying or whatever. However, the very existence of these papers proves there has been a scientific discussion about occurring global cooling, and thats what its all about.
In ≈1975, climate scientists said (again in simple words), people be careful, all that aerosols and sulfur emissions you're poluting are very likely to cause a global cooling, so stop it!
In ≈1985, climate scientists said, people be careful, all that Chlorofluorocarbon you're poluting is very likely to cause Ozone depletion, so stop it!
Since ≈2000, climate scientists say, people be careful, all that CO2 you're poluting is very likely to cause a global warming, so stop it!
I don't see any difference between those three cases. —Bender235 (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Because those aren't the cases. In ~1975, please didn't know what was likely to happen, and said so. As the article documents. By ~1980, warming was fairly firmly established as the consensus; certainly by 1990. BTW, bringing in the ozone hole is a Bad Sign William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That's just wrong. In the 70s, climate scientist did not say "we have no clue about what's going on". They were well aware of the fact that CO2 has a greenhouse effect and aerosols have a cooling effect. And they predicted (or considered a scenario) both that climate might warm because of increasing CO2 or that it might cool because of increasing sulfur emissions. It's just not correct to state they didn't predict anything because they said they don't know nothing. ——Bender235 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You're trying to oversimplify a fairly complex situation. Have you read my paper? Try [6], you might find it interesting William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't care about your paper. I care about the facts. Rasool and Scheider (1971) acknowledged the "effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities," and they also prognosticated what would have happend if aerosol content had increased. They did not say "we have no clue what we are talking about, we're blind men trying to describe an elephant" as you might want them to. However, aerosol content did not increase by factor 4, and the ice age never came back. But Rasool and Schneider still said what they said.
Incidently Rasool&Schneider(1971) is discussed on page 4 in the paper WMC pointed you at. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you mind explaining me why climatology has to be the only science that never failed? I mean, is there any astronomer ignoring the fact that they did not know the universe is expanding - before Hubble? Is there any physicist denying that there has ever been such things as Le Sage's theory of gravitation? I don't think so. But still you're trying to sell us gross falsehood about what scienctists claimed in the 1970s, that global cooling "never had significant scientific support". It's ridiculous. —Bender235 (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You apparently think your opinion to be the correct one. So if you have so much evidence - i suggest that you get the evidence printed in a reliable source. And then come back and teach us. Wikipedia relies on verifiability not truth. (neither yours nor WMC's).
Your personal POV is irrelevant, unless you can provide the reliable sources that promote that particular opinion. And of course show that its more than a fringe view. If you want to discuss your own personal views - then find another forum. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you realize I pointed one a "printed, reliable source" (Rasool/Schneider that is)? This isn't my POV. Actually, WMC is trying to sell us his POV. —Bender235 (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
One paper does not a scientific opinion make. Try reading the paper that WMC pointed you at. And yes WMC is an expert with a peer-reviewed paper on this particular subject. So i find it rather silly that you are dismissing it out of hand, and are instead going for your own original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems like you are unaware of how this discussion started. I never pointed on Rasool/Schenider for scientific consensus. I pointed on how Rasool/Schneider is interpreted in this article by saying they "considered global cooling a possible future scenario, but they did not predict it." —Bender235 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes? And has been already pointed out - they didn't predict such. Their paper is very specific on saying that its a possibility not a prediction. And it would require a 4 fold increase in sulfate emissions. Hence a possibility - not a prediction. (they were btw. wrong and acknowledged that in their paper in 1972). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media response

We might add this 1974 Time Magazine article, as well as this 1975 New York Times article. —Bender235 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There are any number of crap magazine articles about climate at the time. Why pick those? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you actually consider Time Mag and NYT "crap magazines"? However, even if you do, those articles deserve to be mentioned just as the Newsweek article, because they are an important part of the media coverage on global cooling. ––Bender235 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You have the bracketing wrong; english is like that. I called them "crap magazine articles" not "crap magazine" articles. I don't think we should include more William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
And why? It's not like this article would be too long if we added them. —Bender235 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
See WP:WEIGHT --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh? This article is about global cooling, and I'm suggesting we should add two news paper/magazine articles to show the media response to that topic. Because, right now, there's only one media article cited. But there have been a lot more in 1970-1975 (beside these NYT and Time articles, there was also one in Science Digest, another one in the National Geographic, and two more in German newsmag Der Spiegel, to name a few). I just wanted to add two more to give an overview about the massive media coverage of this topic in the mid-70's. —Bender235 (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Weight is about balance, not existence. Your claim that there was a "massive media coverage" is unsubstantiated - we need secondary sources that say that there was a massive media coverage - not your original research by cherry-pick. If we go 30 years into the future - i can cherry-pick 5 articles from within the last 2 years now, who will show "evidence" that the current period had "massive media coverage" of global cooling by the same merits that you are doing here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I got your point. How about Pearce (2006)? —Bender235 (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was there actual cooling?

NASA GISS

Hadley Centre

Thompson (2008) is suggesting that the apparent cooling in the temperature record between 1940 and 1970 is actually the result of a change in instrumental bias in the sea temperature record. This article claims that the cooling actually happened, and wasn't an artifact of how we were measuring. Should the article be changed to indicate that the apparent cooling was dubious, or should it be changed to indicate that the apparent cooling didn't happen at all? Smptq (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, does that mean both NASA and the Hadley Centre still don't know how to accurately record temperatures? Because both figures I added above show significant cooling from ≈1940 to ≈1970. —Bender235 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If the paper says what I think it does, it sounds like both NASA and Hadley may have a modest correction to make.Smptq (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

T08 looks to be jolly good fun. If it turns out to be correct, then a lot of stuff will need updating, starting with the main GW page (not here). But there is no hurry over this: its only just come out. Let it settle William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need to mention Bryden et al. (2005)?

Before User:William M. Connolley reverts this page once again, let's try to figure out whether we should mention Bryden et al. (2005), including the wide-ranging media response from London to Sydney. I really think we should mention it, and I honestly don't know why Connolley is trying to conceal this study. ––Bender235 (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How is a slowing of the THC causing global cooling? There is nothing to conceal - the study simply does not belong here. Put it into thermohaline circulation, although, since it has ben superseded, its relevance is questionable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
…which means we are trying to conceal the fact that the Times of London claimed Britain faces big freeze, that the Sydney Herald reported Scientists forecast global cold snap (they said 'global', you read that?), and that National Geographic proclaimed that a "Mini Ice Age" May Be Coming Soon. Never happened, right? ––Bender235 (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way: studies and theories aren't irrelevant because they turned out to be wrong. Otherwise we might propose Geocentric model and N ray for speedy deletion. ––Bender235 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the articles? None of them speaks about global cooling. There are two out-of-context quotes that can be interpreted that way (unfortunately the Sydney Herald title is one, but even they go to "the ocean currents which keep Europe warm" and finally talk about "devastating effects on socio-economic conditions in the countries bordering the eastern North Atlantic", not about global cooling. Nat-Geo talks writes "western Europe could soon be gripped by a mini ice age" - nothing about "global" there. The Independent talks about Britain only. The Times talks about Western Europe and Britain only. New Scientist has "western Europe [and] its relatively balmy climate" as a topic. In short, your sources do not support the claim about "global cooling" being an issue in 2005. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. This whole article is basically media mis-interpreting scientific studies (in the 1970s), yet you're trying to conceal that exactly the same happened less than 3 years ago. Does Wikipedia have to be that biased? What about Neutral point of view? What about balance? I kinda get the feeling that certain people are trying to conceal any indication that some studies turned out to be wrong. ––Bender235 (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
While the media certainly is misinterpreting scientific studies all the time, in the recent case they have not been interpreting them to predict global cooling, so they don't belong here. We don't discuss E=mc2 in Pride and Prejudice, either, --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is indeed mostly about the 70's, because thats when it happened. Today, we have overwhelmingly GW stories, and every now and again the papers get bored with that and throw in an over-hyped response to something like Bryden et al. I think Stephan is right; but its also about balance. The stuff nowadays is trivial and if added should have correspondingly trivial space. If you could leave out the vast conspiracy theories, that would be nice. If you can't be polite, you may find that people stop talking to you. Leaving out the "proclaimed" might help, too William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I came here to answer a third opinion request but this dispute involves three editors so I'd suggest using WP:RfC instead. JRSP (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)