Talk:Global cooling/Archive 1

message: (SEWilco 04:00, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital variation 

message: For the past 2 years now, winter has been colder than ever where I live. Andros 1337 21:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? The topic here is global warming, not "warming where Andros lives." Where I live, winters have been warmer. Climate researchers, however, look at more than merely "the weather where Andros lives" or "the weather where Sheldon Rampton lives." To measure global warming, they study temperatures throughout the planet. --Sheldon Rampton 21:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For much of the world, the temperatures have been much cooler since late 2002. Global warming is only as "accepted" as global cooling was in the 70s. At that time it was said to be widespread common knowledge, just like they say today of global warming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.224.118 (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought the title of the article was Global Cooling -- not Global Warming. --The Outhouse Mouse 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this thread had been dead for nearly two years... --Stephan Schulz 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a side note. The weather has been colder everywhere I have lived too, for the past 2 years. Southern Turkey, Cyprus, Missouri (USA). However, Northern Turkey is suprisingly warm for this time of year. I should be knee-deep in snow by now. The weather is getting quite interesting. SadanYagci 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just even more of a side note. Global warming or cooling is not decided by how hot or cold it is. The theory is in decimals of degrees. Gavinthesavage 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would not such a theory then be invalid, since it has been notably cooler where I live as well?  Even if it's in decimals of degrees, it has been cooler rather than warmer.  Cargocontainer 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming is false! 

message: The version I fixed was inaccurate and badly written.  If you don't like how mine is phrased then fix it.  If you prefer to use the other as a basis for your edits then feel free.  Someone is going to fix it though and if you can't be bothered, then I will.  In any case, spare us your imperious reverts.--JonGwynne 19:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 21:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   The previous version is inaccurate.  For example, "global cooling" isn't a "concern", it is a theory.  The use of "was" is inappropriate since it still is a theory - although most people consider it obsolete in the light of new research.  Oh, wait...  I pointed out that fact in the new version of article.  How about that?  Now what was this about a POV you claim I added to it?  I notice you're very free with your unquantified and unsubstantianted allegations.  And while we're on the subject, in your comments you use the phrase "this is stupid".  I would like you to explain exactly what it is you think is stupid.  Because if you're referring to me, my edit or my raising of this issue...  wouldn't that be regarded as a personal attack?  I mean, not that I really care what you think of me, I just mention it because you're sure quick to accuse other people of making personal attacks against you (even when they're not).  Are you unwilling to hold yourself to the same standards?  In any case, you're certainly the last one here to be lecturing other people on politeness - the general practice is to learn and practice something before you start trying to pass it on to other people.  And before we leave the subject of unsubstantiated claims, how do you figure I'm "starting an edit war" by correcting misstatements and pointing out clearly that the theory of global cooling is obsolete so you won't throw a fit and engage in your typical knee-jerk-reversions?  Is it because I mentioned Global Warming?  The only reason I did that was to provide a place to add a link to same.  If you want to take it out, feel free.  If you want to say something like "The theory is generally considered to be obsolete.", that would be fine.  That's how a most of the people here seem to think wikipedia is supposed to work.  Person A comes in and makes some changes to an article, then someone else comes along and makes changes to the changes.  Person C comes along...  That's how the articles grow, evolve and are improved.  Persistent and unnecessary reversions screws up this process.--JonGwynne 22:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reverted the introduction to what it said previously, with the addition of a link to Stephen Schneider who wrote a book in 1976 on Global Cooling called "The Genesis Strategy" and wrote an introduction to another called "The Cooling" by Lowell Ponte. William Connelley is already on parole for reverting without explanation, and has a well deserved reputation for censoring statements that clash with his political beliefs. --DiamondGeezer 19:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I've reverted SEW's icky footnotes stuff out. Reasons same as ever, but la la la, we have to keep people happy so here we go yet again... stop me if you're bored or anything...
* it over-complexifies, and therefore raises a bar against non-expert users adding stuff: which I regard as very anti-wiki
* its very hard to maintain: every time you add a new one, all the others need re-numbering
* its 2 clicks not 1 to get to a ref
* perhaps more incidentally, it works very badly in the history: click on one in a previous diff and you get redirected to the current version: very confusing indeed
William M. Connolley 16:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, as with the Kyoto protocol article, inline links are preferred. Having said that, the links need to be collected at the end in a Rreference section, but not with the cumbersome and easily brken pet project that SEW is pushing. Given time, I'll try to convert his notes section into a proper reference section for the article as I plan to do with Kyoto. Vsmith 16:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Until you have time to edit them, don't delete the more detailed citations.  Do you delete everything you don't have time to edit?  (SEWilco 16:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you made any effort to reach consensus on the issue? Vsmith 17:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  OK, good. BTW I *do* record my thanks to SEW for pointing out the broken care4free links and the leeds link. I've removed the latter  (fixed version) because it was only there for the graphs (I forget who added it) and the interest would be in having *contemporary* graphs. William M. Connolley 16:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Historical graphs are not relevant to a historical article?  (SEWilco 16:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're too busy reverting to think. The graphs on that page *aren't* historical. Sigh. William M. Connolley 17:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks to me like "decades of a cooling trend" refers to the text in the source material.  (SEWilco 03:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, your description of the WP:FN system is full of errors.  (SEWilco 03:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh, well that was a feeble but nonetheless welcome attempt at communication, do try a bit harder and point out these errors. Who knows, if you talk, people may listen? William M. Connolley 15:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: WP:CITE says you must defer to the citation style used by the first major contributor, unless there is a consensus on the page to change it. See Wikipedia:Cite sources#How to Cite Sources, which says: "If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the style used should be that of the first major contributor." I understand that you're keen on footnotes, and although I've personally never seen the attraction of them, I'm very willing to be proven wrong, and I respect that you're willing to devote time and energy to helping with WP's sourcing issues. I wish more editors would do that! But please try to see that there are advantages in other citation styles too, and edit warring to replace other styles with footnotes isn't appropriate or fair to the other editors on the page.
That was by User:SlimVirgin but I'm sure we'd all agree with her. William M. Connolley 17:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline vs FN 

message: * Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability prefers full citations.
===== Yes =====
# SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q1: Are more detailed citations preferred over less detailed ones? 

message: # SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: * Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests connecting text to associated source citations.
===== Yes =====
# SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q2: Is it desirable to identify which statement uses which source? 

message: # SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: * Are more detailed citations preferred over URL-only citations?
** Is "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest. " preferred over "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest ."?
** Citation for first example above:
**#  
===== Yes (first example preferred) =====
# SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q3: Are detailed citations preferred over URL-only citations? 

message: # SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes (first example preferred) 

message: * Wikipedia:Footnotes has the current best practice for linking text a to relevant citation.
** Is "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest. " preferred over "by 1979 global cooling was of waning interest ."?
** Citation for first example above:
**#  
** Citation for second example above:
**# 
===== Yes (first example preferred) =====
# SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q4: Are references linked to citations preferred? 

message: # SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes (first example preferred) 

message: : What is being referred to in this article:
:* Nandesuka edit with URL-only inline links.
:* SEWilco edit with Wikipedia:Footnotes linked citations.
:* Differences between versions
: The differences are due to using Wikipedia:Footnote templates to link between references and citations which describe sources.  This version of the URL-only links contains replacements for many dead links(diff) which were detected during creation of the detailed citations; the dead links are interpreted by SEWilco as an indication of how infrequently URL-only links are followed and/or maintained. (SEWilco 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments