Talk:Sallie Baliunas

message: I just reverted 3 anon edits , because:
* saying the satellite record shows slight warming is the sure sign of a skeptic who hasn't read the sat t rec page :-)
* This view is accepted by a group of scientists, who disagree with the common belief is wrong - that group is disparate, not unified under the Baliunas banner
I also took out and in IPCC reports  (the actual ref occurs here ) because the IPCC cites lots of stuff - you can't try to imply support for B's position from this
William M. Connolley 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's uncalled-for. She's an astronomer; by all accounts, a very good astronomer. But on the climate stuff she makes the sort of mistakes that are common for anyone operating far outside their field of expertise. Raymond Arritt 14:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is complete nonsense. "In 2003, Baliunas and Willie Soon (also an astrophysicist) published a review paper on historical climatology that concluded that the climate has not changed in the last 2000 years." Whatever one might think of their paper, it certainly did not say this! Paul Matthews 21:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right. From memory, the paper claimed that todays climate was non-exceptional in the last 2000 years. It was junk, of course William M. Connolley 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv: why 

message: I cut a section that was argumentative (CO2 satelite versus land stuff).  Citing a quote and than saying "but that is wrong" is argumentation.  It's also not well-written as it's not clear if the author is saying that she STILL has this point of view (contests the new evidence on satellites) or if she only held it at the time.TCO 02:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material was over-long but should be included in some form. Her present views are irrelevant to the fact that she made a sweeping pronouncement that "the warming of the earth’s surface observed in the last 100 years cannot be due to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human activities. The recent global warming must be the result of natural factors" based primarily on data that were known at the time to be incorrect. By all accounts Baliunas is a good astronomer, but when discussing global warming she makes  silly mistakes typical of someone operating far outside their area of specialization.  The fact that she makes these mistakes isn't our fault, and we have no obligation to cover for her (we do, of course, have an obligation to stick to the facts). Hiding such things would abdicate our duty to the reader. Raymond Arritt 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've shortened it William M. Connolley 19:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pruning

message: I cut some remarks about Singer et als opinions on ozone depletion.  These guys may very well have had silly opinions on that, but that is not relevant in an article on Balunias.  It's wandering to mention it.  (And wandering to make a pointed point.)TCO 03:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More pruning 

message: I removed two lines re ozone and CFCs there was no verifiable source.  Feel free to add it back in if you have the source, although its relevance is questionable.  Theblog (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ozone pruning 

message: http://astronomy.fas.harvard.edu/astronomy-alumni
William M. Connolley (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired 

message: Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Sallie Baliunas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501052339/http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38 to http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930043839/http://www.techcentralstation.com/081604C.html to http://www.techcentralstation.com/081604C.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070227171156/http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/90.pdf to http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/90.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061014045518/http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/04-sun.html to http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/04-sun.html
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5ooajhxkq?url=http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/directory/researchers/sallie-baliunas to http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/directory/researchers/sallie-baliunas
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030225010718/http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Testimony-baliunas.htm to http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Testimony-baliunas.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041009144009/http://www.cirs.net/investigadores/Astronomy/BALIUNAS.htm to http://www.cirs.net/investigadores/Astronomy/BALIUNAS.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501052339/http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38 to http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=38
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * I also have a problem with much of the use of the word "denier", but my objection is not the same as that of those who hold a certain political position and because of that don't agree with the scientific consensus. See WP:YWAB for my positions on this and related topics. 
:My problem is that the term "Climate change denier" is a broad brush for painting people who hold any of the following views, and that we can find multiple reliable sources that call people who hold each of the following views "deniers":
:* The scientists are all lying. It is a huge conspiracy. I read it on Infowars so I know it's true.
:* Climate change? What climate change? I haven't bothered to read anything by a scientist, but I don't believe it.
:* I believe that the climate is changing, just as it always has. Nothing unusual about the last few centuries.  
:* I believe that the climate is changing, and that's a good thing. It's ice ages that are bad.
:* I believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are to blame, but I am not convinced that the change will be as large as is predicted.
:* I believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are to blame, but think that methane has a higher effect and CO2 has a lower effect than claimed.
:* I believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are to blame, but not that decreasing CO2 emissions is the answer. I believe that we can reverse it through geoengineering.
:* I believe that the climate is changing, and that humans are to blame, but I don't believe that increasing the size and power of the federal government is the solution. The polluters will just buy off the politicians as they always do.
:* I believe everything the climatologists say about climate change. I accept all of the climate models and simulations. My problem is with the economic predictions that get tacked on. We have an awful track record on economic predictions.
:* I believe all of it. Climate, economy, proposed solutions, I accept them all. I also believe that it is too late. We are doomed.
:* I believe all of it. I just don't agree that having western countries reduce CO2 emissions while letting China increase them without any restrictions will solve the problem.
:* I believe all of it. I just don't agree that having the US reduce CO2 emissions while letting the rest of the world increase them without any restrictions will solve the problem.
:* I believe all of it. I just don't agree that having California reduce CO2 emissions while letting the rest of the country and the rest of the world increase them without any restrictions will solve the problem.
:* I believe all of it. I just don't agree that having the City of San Francisco reduce CO2 emissions while letting the rest of the country and the rest of the world increase them without any restrictions will solve the problem.
:* I am a scientist. As scientist are in the habit of doing, I question one small part of established science and am doing research into a new theory. I realize that the orthodoxy is usually right, but that's how we do things in science. Alas, I picked an area where any and all opinions that are not in perfect lockstep with the scientific orthodoxy are called "climate change denial"
You can call me a climate change denier now, because the entries about San Francisco and economic models make a lot of sense to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A climate change denier is someone who believes some random bullshit at odds with science, for the purpose of having a pretend reason to be against doing something about global warming. This covers most of your variants. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Be more specific, which is why I think it's better to discuss climate change denial rather than "denier". As that article shows, it's unwarranted doubt, particularly associated with organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science. The subject of this article has contributed notably to that campaigning, hence the Soon and Baliunas controversy where, with oil industry funding, they recycled other people's research and misrepresented it to support an old discredited "theory", with results that were used by the GW Bush administration as support for overruling the EPA and editing an EPA report contrary to the science evaluated by the EPA. Beliefs are only relevant to the extent that misrepresentation of science for CC denial is fostered by ideology. . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Broad Brush