Talk:Unstoppable Global Warming

To begin

"Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" reads oddly. Why the ":"?

explores the possibilities - that sounds very unlikely. Are you sure this really is a gentle exploration with no pre-conceived ideas? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why if more than 50% of the synopsis about something not mentioned in the lede? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And omitting all crit makes this POV. You have not very long William M. Connolley (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The ":" is there as that is that way it is written on all the book seller sites. "Explores the possibilities" This is nice and neutral can`t see you issue with it. A synopsis is obviously going to have more in it that the lede in a book article. I have found to critical reviews yet, still looking actually. Am about to add one from www.londonbookreview.com but it is not a critical one either, do you know of a few? mark nutley (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Explores the possibilities" This is nice and neutral - you misunderstand. A book that did that would be nice and neutral. But are even you claiming that this book *is* nice and neutral? I assume not: this is written from a skeptic viewpoint, yes? So you have inserted a false claim of the books neutrality William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the article or the book is written from a sceptic viewpoint? And yes "Explores the possibilities" is a neutral way to write what the book is about, care t osuggest an alternative wording? mark nutley (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I saying that the book is written from a non-neutral, skeptic, viewpoint. As to the article, well, you wrote it. As to the book: do you believe that it is written from a neutral of from a skeptic viewpoint? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on the book is irrelevant with regards to the article content, as is yours. You will be pleased to know however i found a review which is unfavourable from the guardian. My daughter has just woken so i`ll continue to add other refs later, hopefully a few more negative ones to balance the article out mark nutley (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a nice fancy, but not true. What you think will affect what you write. In this case, since you refuse to say, I'm going to say that you think the book is neutral (erroneuosly). This causes you to describe it as neutral (erroneously). The fix is to describe it accurately William M. Connolley (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with your edits thus far, it`s nice to be in agreement for a change :) mark nutley (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

We have enough fawning reviews already. [1] adds nothing, and is NN William M. Connolley (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have put it back and removed the daily mail one instead as a compromise mark nutley (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This section - "Vin Suprynowicz writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal said, "In the book "Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years," authors S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery point out that scrapping every car, truck and SUV in America would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only about 2 percent. Meantime, merely extinguishing all the coal deposit fires that continue to burn unchecked around the world would reduce those emissions by 2 to 3 percent. Which is a more sensible thing to try?" is pushing the boundaries of WP:COATRACK. That's not about the review of the book. Ravensfire (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that`s what he wrote mate, and it was his review :). I`v removed it completely and look at it again when time allows to see if it can be salvaged mark nutley (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's his review, but you added it. You essentially turned a review into a quote of the book to make a specific point. That's a coatrack - come on, you know that. Focus on reviews OF the book, not ones that just quote especially juicy lines from the book. Ravensfire (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was using what reviews i found while creating the article, i was not making a point i just used what the source said. And if the source says it then how is it coatrack? mark nutley (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You said something similar when I found you cherry picking something from a source - that's a horrible, horrible excuse. I expect that from an advertiser, not from someone here. "How can it be POV - I was just quoting a souce!" (And yes, I know you haven't said exactly that, but take a look at what you said, and at my made-up quote. And think about it.)Ravensfire (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This article was made before then, and i think i am far more careful since your advice on using quotes mark nutley (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Another comment in the review section that's not a review - 'Debra J. Saunders writing for the San Francisco Chronicle and the St. Petersburg Times has said, "Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years, that argues that the Earth warms every 1,500 years due to a solar-linked cycle. The book begins in the year 1100 when Vikings grew vegetables on Greenland, where the population reached 3,000 before creeping glaciers and cold killed the remaining residents. Now, Greenland is warm again."' There's nothing in there that actually reviews the book - it's a summary of the book, which normally you'd find in the synopsis section. You've got two references for this, but BOTH of them are to the exact same article! What the heck? Are you trying to puff up the importance of this person? Please just pick one of them (preferably the SFGate as that goes to the actual newpaper, not the Google news image. On top of that, this isn't even a review of the book! Why is this in a section named "reviews"? Ravensfire (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could possibly add to the synopsis from here. The point about the warm periods being good for people, while the gold periods are bad seems to be a strong point in the book - I've see that made in some other articles that mention the book. This book review has a powerful ending line - not sure about the Jamaica Gleaner, but apparently it's been around since 1834. Like most books of this type, finding a book review not in a strongly conservative or skeptic website or blog is tough - I don't envy you trying to find articles. Sheesh - even Mises.org had something!

Found a maybe here. Something like "In an opinion piece in the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby called the book one of a "steadily-widening shelf of excellent books surveys the data in laymen’s terms and exposes the weaknesses in the doomsday scenario" would be good. It's not quoting from the book, it's talking about the book. That's the material you need in the Reception section, not something where the entire quote is essentially a quote from the book. Ravensfire (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I took out one more at random - the last one. Now at least the text for reviews is a little under 50% of the article, which is a bare minimum for sanity William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not randomly remove sourced content. Minor4th 18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong on 4.8 Ga

4.8 Ga is > the age of the Earth, but I can't find a way to correct this inline that isn't likely to spawn an edit war for being 'defamatory'. Currently thinking. Awickert (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it's presented as the author's timeline, so it's correct w/ regards to what the book presents and the authors think. Ravensfire (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I put it in quotes with an ugly parenthetical comment afterward. It was bad as it was, because it said 4.8 Ga as if it were true. Awickert (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The text viewable on Google books says 4.5, so it isn't clear to me where the 4.8 came from. --Alan (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, you're right. I should have checked Google. Awickert (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Merchants of Doubt

Does not mention this book at all so i removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.64 (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC) someone put this back even though the source does not mention this book and nor does MOD this is against the rules here right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.64 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I couldn't figure out what your edit summary was talking about but I see it now. SQGibbon (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160304035203/http://globalwarmingheartland.org/policy-documents/heartlander-may-2007-0 to http://globalwarmingheartland.org/policy-documents/heartlander-may-2007-0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have always seen "the consensus of scientists" used as the final word on many issues. There are many - thousands - of scientists who study the long term cycles of climate. Their "consensus" is that the climate changes in regular cycles. They predict rising temperatures for some centuries and then falling temperatures for some centuries. I love it when "consensuses" agree - though it appears the more publicized scientists seem to be discomforted by the idea of natural cycles. 2601:181:8301:4510:94A8:12F8:30BA:D8EF (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Now all you need is reliable sources that say that. Until then, it's just a random rant on the internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)