Jump to content

Talk:21st Century mini-ice age conjecture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WTF?

[edit]

This is utter crap William M. Connolley (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Opinion? WP:Synth? Or WP:OR? Do you have a WP:RS. If it exists and supports your thesis, it should be in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:7&6=thirteen, according to this textbook it is milk that comes from those things. Crap, on the other hand, is emitted from a different organ. Seriously, I would not mind seeing an article that explains how studying solar activity folds into climate science, and how the limits of our current understanding allows for swings in public perception of shorterm weather and popularization of fringe views (especially by the climate denial crowd, though not exclusively). For example, the original version of this article made much speculative hay out of the regional weather in the US upper midwest. I don't think the (real) science literature reports any marked decreased in solar energy being received by the earth, which rather shoots this speculation in the foot. The theory of Polar amplification, on the other hand, does appear in the professional literature. For example, see this recent open access article ["Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid Arctic warming"].
In sum, either this article should be deleted (probably under WP:NOTABILITY) or it should be transformed into a meaningful work that informs the reader of what we know, the limits of what we know, and what our psyches and politics do when we ponder beyond those limits. But this article isn't that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that there is room enough for fringe theories. However, we need to put them into context, and if they are fringe we need sources that say so. That's all. Simply resorting to name calling doesn't help anyone. Ipse dixit? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put in some contrary opinion. I am concerned that one of them is a very-well researched and sourced blog. Given that I have already received menacing warnings about Arb Com and climate change, I don't want to be subjected to some "discretionary" punishment. If you can find a better source, please add it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an equal opportunity DS alerter.... pass them out all the time, even for excellent edits in the subject area. Hardly ever have a later problem that leads to formal complaint. Go for it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that includes my edits. I also put a link to this article in Little Ice Age, specifically the solar fluctuation connection. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement for sourcing this is crap isn't really fulfillable, from any kind of respectable source, because The mainstream view ignores it entirely. It really is that fringe. The converse is the total absence of any scientific references supporting this nonsense (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf is self-published drivel) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with you on your points. It seems to lack even support amongst GW denialists, so the article should probably go to Afd.--MONGO 20:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought AFD when it first appeared too, but now I think it should be merged into the serious solar science articles. There is RS support for that part of this drivel talking about a possible Grand solar minimum (see WashPo article below for one). However that same RS says the notion this would be enough to overcome the effects of AGW is nonsense. This should be turned into a redir to that discussion. Still looking for the best place for it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

[edit]

D?

[edit]

The article now consists of nothing but contrary opinion. Wy does it still exist? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed he "supporting" material. It was mostly the opinion of one scientist. If there is disagree with my removing this material, it can be reverted, but the material would need lots of work and I don't think it will ever represent mainstream opinion. I would support deleting the entire article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm (slightly) new, meaning, I've never done anything especially bureaucratic here. Is this [1] as complicated as it gets? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over Witzsche portion

[edit]

These edits fall under WP:ARBCC. Without any discussion you have restored new text that was reverted by other eds twice.

  • 15:27, April 13, 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen . . (3,755 bytes) (+473)‎ . . (Undid revision 656283420 by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) Wrong. Take it to the talk page.)
  • 15:07, April 13, 2015‎ NewsAndEventsGuy . . (3,282 bytes) (-473)‎ . . (→‎Projections: author/blogger's opinion problematic WEIGHT, FRINGE, UNDUE, and sourced to his own BLOG)
  • 14:31, April 13, 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen (3,755 bytes) (+1,189)‎ . . (Undid revision 656216973 by MONGO (talk) WP:RS Your opinion ("nonsense:))
  • 03:15, April 13, 2015‎ MONGO . . (2,566 bytes) (-1,189)‎ . . (revert nonsense) (undo | thank)
  • 03:11, April 13, 2015‎ Ironfist88 ‎ . . (3,755 bytes) (+1,189)‎ . . (Undid revision 656215722 by XLinkBot (talk)) (Tag: reverting anti-vandal bot)
  • 03:00, April 13, 2015‎ XLinkBot . . (2,566 bytes) (-1,189)‎ . . (BOT--Reverting link addition(s) by Ironfist88 to revision 655129649 (YOUTUBE .com/watch?v=NwKtCJIVHK4, YOUTUBE com/watch?v=RTI3GlYYHUs [\byoutube\.com]))
  • 02:22, April 13, 2015‎ Ironfist88 . . (3,755 bytes) (+1,189)‎ . . ((edited with ProveIt)) Witsche sentence and source first added

I am complaining about the linked edit in the list above, where you brusquely say "take it talk". Actually, under WP:BRD the onus is on the editor supporting the BOLD CHANGE to initiate a talk thread. You are the guy/gal defending this new text, so you're EDITWARRING by restoring reverted text without discussion. I went to the source, and it appears to be a nonRS BLOG. Besides that, who cares what this guy's opinion is? Even if you can show it is RS, what WEIGHT does his opinion have?

Please either

  • explain your edit summary, demonstrate that the source is RS, and answer the WEIGHT question, or
  • self-revert.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NAEG is raising good points. The material inserted is fringe and should be removed from the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "fringe" argument is misguided. The article recognizes that this is a minority hypothesis that is at odds with most reliable scientific source. But its existence outside the mainstream does not mean that it should not be reported. The same arguments (IMHO) could be made about those who oppose human caused global warming. And I presume we have pro and con on that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is misguided is the existence of this article. We don't need, don't want, fringe, even if it is wrapped up in an article designed to find a way for it to be included. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About this article, I agree but I don't paint ALL fringe with the same brush. If a fringe concept already has notoriety, then we should cover it as a fringe concept. On the other hand, we are not an advertising agency for quackpots selling books or trying to get their latest quackery over the "notoriety" threshold. They gotta do that without our help. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Witzsche's opinion and the associated youtube vid, he's just some dude who wants to sell a book and the only RS are his self produced blog and vid hyping the book he wants to sell. Before you restore the Witzsche material, please explain how they are RS sources, why his opinion even of this fringe material has any WP:WEIGHT, and why these sources aren't just commercial book hyping WP:PROMO / WP:SPAM.
You might as well make the same explanation for the only remaining guy's opinion, for which the RS is his own commercially available for-profit self published book.
Please don't just ignore these questions and re-revert again. That would be taken as WP:DISRUPTSIGNS
Meanwhile, is anyone going to AFD this?
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree...it's so fringe that we have no reliable sources....not even ones that specifically say this is fringe.--MONGO 18:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article had lots of sources from newspapers. Presumably you've gutted them long ago. Then you opine that it has no citations and no WP:RS. And its gets deleted because of it. This is called a Self fullfilling prophecy. Been there; done that; seen it all before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any civil substantive RS-based rebuttal, or are you going to rest on your discussion of other eds' behavior? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC) BTW, yes there were a lot of sources, and yes they have been deleted, but were they WP:Reliable sources as we define that term? I don't think so, but feel free to pick one and make your case. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In redirecting the article you conveniently wiped out the entire article history, thus making it impossible to respond without reinventing the wheel. Lucky break! Happily for your position. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One does not have to be a visionary to read the writing on this wall: Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin This has all the earmarks of a marsupial tribunal. Knock yourselves out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:21st_Century_mini-ice_age_conjecture&oldid=1196972494"