Talk:Heat pollution

Neutral point of view
I think this article is as far from a neutral point of view as it gets. And linking to an unconvienient truth as a reference is just ridiculous. It would be better to remove it entirely than to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.227.186 (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear
Heat pollution - in the sense of direct heat output, rather than greenhouse gases - is not a significant contributor to global warming. This article needs work William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Has anyone actually done a study into the amount of direct heat generated and if its effect on the climate is absolutely zero? It feels silly to even consider that it might have a not-negligable impact, but it shouldnt be written off unless it has been scientifically written off Jaimaster (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr Connolley is correct. I have a source that's in agreement with that. I'll work on it. The whole article will have to be modified; lots of text may wind up getting axed. I started work on the article recently, but it will be a slow process. Just a few days ago there were no references at all. E_dog95'   Hi ' 09:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Edit conflicts. I saved mine as I'd hacked so much out. I may have gone too far. My opinion: this article should indeed be about heat pollution. Its not about global warming, or GHG, since we have articles for those. It should clearly state the minor role that HP plays. I don't know a good academic source for that (I know one very very bad one though) but I do have the numbers from my blog William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. I think you have it right. As it was, it was hard to tell what the article was really about so it is a good direction to remove any ambiguous ideas. E_dog95'   Hi ' 11:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do have a source that verifies the small role that heat pollution plays. It will have to wait until this weekend tho...very late here. E_dog95'  Hi ' 11:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Nordell paper is junk, and people have noticed . We shouldn't be using it.
 * The Nordel paper is a published paper, opining that it is "junk" makes it no more or less so. After its removal the only source left is a not-notable blog reference (no offense intended to WMC, traffic-based assessment). Jaimaster (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well yes. You're right. It is a published paper, and I did think twice about removing it, because of just that. It represents a viewpoint and it could be included based on WP:V. I decided to remove it because I found a separate (harsh) critic of the paper. You're welcome to put that material back into the article, but my thought was that I'd rather take the advice of a scientist that is here working with us on the article; someone that shows interest in improving this article. My next move is to include another statement and reference from John Christy. I would though, like to represent both sides of the argument... What are your thoughts? E_dog95'  Hi ' 00:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally id say include the paper and then use the critique as the response. The critical commentry published should be enough to present the paper as "junk" if it is, without us deciding to leave it out or overtly label it as garbage. You can then leave the blog in as a supporting act, but it should not be the primary source. Jaimaster (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't think we can use the critique that I provided a link for, but in case I can find another source that can serve to deflate the validity of Mr. Nordell's paper, I will include that. Thanks for your advice. E_dog95'   Hi ' 05:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We should not use the Nordell paper. It is junk, and it has public rebutals which point out exectly why it is junk. There is no rule on wiki that says you *must* reference such a source; we should just quietly pass it by as an embarassment. No-one would ref Fleischmann (sp?) and Pons in an article on electrochemistry, despite it being a published paper, except to illustrate the scandal William M. Connolley (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a paper source on the effect of heat pollution on global climate use it instead. You cant use a blog as the primary source, leave alone the only source, to describe scientific opinion. Do we even need to? The last line of the preceeding section mentions the IPCC on the matter, isnt it enough to leave it at that? Jaimaster (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Made a quick chop and change edit to reflect my last. Have a look and revert it if you think its no good. Jaimaster (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Heat_pollution
As it stands, the article has changed just up to this section. The new text has provided prose along with references that presents this area of the topic. Because this is already covered, I will be removing this section entirely. The remainder of the article will be used to present the perspectives of the climatologists and scientists. E_dog95'  Hi ' 03:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)