Talk:Nuclear winter

Talk:Nuclear winter/Archive 1

KGB involvement revisited

The discussion regarding KGB involvement above seems to revolve around the reliability of Pete Earley's book "Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia's Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War", which devotes a section on Tretyakov's claims. Nigel West has reviewed this book (West, Nigel(2008) 'A Review of: “The New Kind of Russian Defector”', International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 21:4, 793 — 796), and he doesn't dismiss the book as unreliable or Earley's discussion of Tretyakov's claims as fringe, his only criticism was "author Pete Earley is guilty of a major irritant— failure to provide an index, thereby reducing the utility of his otherwise fine volume". Unless we can find another published source that claims Earley's book is unreliable or fringe, we cannot really dismiss and exclude this. So I think we do need to restore that section concerning claims of KGB involvement, with appropriate attribution ofcourse. --Martintg (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this makes no difference at all. Its NN junk, as it was before William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a cite to a published source that claims this is NN junk? Pete Earley and Nigel West have published otherwise. --Martintg (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How could I possibly have a cite saying tht it is NN? By its very nature, that isn't possible William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On what basis are you making the claim it is NN junk? We have Pete Earley publishing the claim and Nigel West reviewing the claim in a scholarly journal. So you are questioning the credibility of both Earley and West, on the basis of what? WP:OR? --Martintg (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be shifting your ground somewhat. Earlier, you said that West had reviewed the book. Now you say he reviewed this NW claim. What does he say about teh NW claim, then? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not shifting ground at all. West reviews the book by Earley, which is about Tretyakov, and a section is devoted to Nuclear Winter. In the view of Nigel West, Earley's book is "a fine volume" and Earley's account of Sergei Tretyakov's claim exposes Nuclear Winter "as a gigantic fraud, and a classic example of KGB ‘‘active measures.’’". Perhaps I didn't make that clear in my initial statement above, but West does discuss Earley's treatment of Tretyakov's claims about NW and seems to accept them as credible. I think West is more qualified than us to pass judgment on the credibility of these claims. The question is really of what due weight should these claims be given in the article, but in any case some mention must be made since we can cite a number of notable authors that discuss this. --Martintg (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We discussed this matter with William M. Connolley previously (should be somewhere at this page), and he did not provide any reasonable arguments why this information should not be included. This claim has been published in a reliable source, a book by a notable author Pete Earley. This claim has never been disputed. Hence, it represents a majority view, as long as no opposite views exist. This claim does not disprove any scientific aspects of the problem; it only tells that subject was used and exaggregated for political purposes. No reason to delete. This should be asked at a noticeboard or using an RfC. I suggest to include this.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, William tells that the claim is wrong. Said who? Please provide any good source telling that the claim is wrong.Biophys (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not only does William contend that Pete Earley's book is unreliable (based on William's own research apparently), but he also doesn't accept that Pete Earley's book (along with the NW claim) was positively reviewed in the International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence by Nigel West. I'm not sure which Wikipedia policy allows more weight to be given to the opinion of User:William M. Connolley over the opinion of Nigel West in reviewing the reliability of Pete Earley's book. Nigel West is a published expert in intelligence matters, I'm not sure of William's qualifications here. --Martintg (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PROVEIT, WP:V: WP:REDFLAG. Removed. Anarchangel (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than WP:CONSENSUS, it seems more like a combination of WP:CENSOR, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and defense of WP:TRUTH. It is easily verified that Pete Earley and Nigel West, both eminent authors support the claims, so WP:PROVEIT, WP:V and WP:REDFLAG don't apply here. I think we will have to escalate this to the relevant notice board to get some outside view. --Martintg (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS: There is no consensus at this time for inclusion of this material. Anarchangel (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

PROVEIT applies to a points in discussion made against inclusion: "William M. Connolley...did not provide any reasonable arguments why this information should not be included"
PROVEIT reads "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", which means that those against inclusion do not have to have evidence that the material should not be included. I am not saying that evidence has not been provided, merely that arguments for inclusion based on alleged lack of evidence for non-inclusion are unfounded.

No, PROVEIT simply states that material must be supported by a reliable source. If you read the next sentance: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". This condition has been fulfilled with the provision of several inline citations. --Martintg (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

REDFLAG applies under points 1 "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources" and 3: "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." Anarchangel (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

REDFLAG also states "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources" The exceptional claims contained Pete Earley's book were reviewed by Nigel West and published in a high quality source, being the peer reviewed scholarly journal International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence. So that condition is also fulfilled. --Martintg (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the information adheres to one of the points in REDFLAG it doesn't have to adhere to the others? If you plan on ignoring others' arguments to a glorious consensus, I can tell you right now, it won't succeed. Points 1 and 3, please. You might also presume that I read the rest of the article, and therefore had a reason to not mention high-quality sources, such as it wasn't the most pressing issue. This is your one and only opportunity to start acting as though you can be reasoned with. Anarchangel (talk)

Beginning of the argument against inclusion of the Tretyakov material in another article, by User:Marshall46

“ "I have deleted Tretyakov's conspiracy theory about Nuclear winter as WP:Fringe.

He is the only source given for the claim that the nuclear winter hypothesis was a malicious fabrication by the KGB foisted on credulous westerners in order to foment opposition to the US weapons programme. The claim is inherently doubtful.

• The hypothesis appeared in the magazine Nature (journal) before it appeared in Ambio, the western journal in which Tretyakov suggests it was planted.

• One of the co-authors of the Ambio article was a Nobel prize winning scientist specializing in the the study of the earth's atmosphere, so he is unlikely to have been duped by falsified research.

• We are expected to believe that Western scientists have naively accepted nonsense foisted on them by the KGB.

• The nuclear winter hypothesis is not a fact but a scientific model of what might happen after a nuclear war, and as such can't be faked, it can only be proposed. It has lasted and has been subject to repeated analysis. If it was a crude hoax it would not have survived.

• The citation of the Time article about the disappearance of the Soviet mathematician who wrote one of the models is the stuff of conspiracy theories. It implies, without actually saying so, that he falsified his model and was killed by the Soviets to silence him; but if his model was false it could be analyzed and its fallacies exposed whether he was dead or alive. That has not happened.

• Finally, it has not occurred to the editor who included this passage that Tretyakov, as an experienced intelligence agent, is perfectly capable of creating black propaganda about the KGB atfer defecting to the West. His testimony should not be quoted unless corroborated. Marshall46 (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)" End of the argument against inclusion of the Tretyakov material in another article, by User:Marshall46

”

The above added by Anarchangel (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. I'd rather rely upon the published view point of Pete Earley and Nigel West, rather than your unpublished synthesis that contends that Pete Earley and Nigel West are WP:FRINGE authors. --Martintg (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You claim to be relying on NW. Indeed you said and Nigel West reviewing the claim in a scholarly journal. But when challenged, you can't find anything that NW said about the claim. Since you care, I assume that means that NW said nothing about the claim. He reviewed the book, but ignored that bit. Hmm William M. Connolley (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You must be kidding me. I said above "In the view of Nigel West, Earley's book is "a fine volume" and Earley's account of Sergei Tretyakov's claim exposes Nuclear Winter "as a gigantic fraud, and a classic example of KGB ‘‘active measures.’’". I'm intrigued about how you arrived at the conclusion: "But when challenged, you can't find anything that NW said about the claim." Now that I am home I have access to Nigel West's paper, and the following is a direct quote:

"And his version (Tretyakov’s) of the KGB’s promotion in 1982 of the wholly bogus ‘‘nuclear winter’’ debate will confirm the worst fears of those who always suspected that Moscow had orchestrated the protests in academia against NATO’s deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe. Led by the late Carl Sagan, the propaganda offensive purported to prove that an Allied response to the arrival of SS-20 mobile launchers in the Warsaw Pact countries would risk a nuclear exchange that could plunge the entire world into a new ice-age. The highly suspect climate calculations had been fabricated by Soviet scientists and then peddled to the gullible in the West, creating a wholly artificial controversy that lent support to the misguided disarmament movement. Now, in Comrade J, the whole sham is exposed as a gigantic fraud, and a classic example of KGB ‘‘active measures.’’"

Strong stuff, and published in the peer reviewed International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, not some fringe publication. West in his concluding remarks assesses the motivation of Tretyakov, and states:

"His decision to spy, and then defect, was driven by altruism, for he was already a wealthy man with a promise of promotion. He has waived any royalties from this book, so Tretyakov is that most dangerous of all species, a man of principle."

So it cannot be claimed that Tretyakov was motivated by profit in making these claims. I see on your user page that you had worked as a climate modeler and perhaps see yourself as qualified to discuss this topic, perhaps you have even published some papers on this. However Nigel West is a expert on intelligence and counter intelligence field and is eminently qualified to assess whether the claims published by Pete Earley are fringe, and this he certainly does not do. As Biophys stated above, "This claim does not disprove any scientific aspects of the problem; it only tells that subject was used and exaggerated for political purposes". I think it is valid to mention this political aspect, including the claims of KGB exploitation of this subject in the "criticism" section. --Martintg (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Having NiW talk specifically about the NuW claims is better. But NiW cannot be considered as an expert on the NuW claims. Biophys's assertion This claim does not disprove any scientific aspects of the problem is wrong: your text inserts According to Nigel West, Sergei Tretyakov's account exposes Nuclear Winter "as a gigantic fraud" - but NiW knows nothing of NuW. It isn't clear to me why you think NiW is neutral and impartial in this. The idea that one Russian created the NuW model in 1985 does not seem at all plausible. As I've said before William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

How would knowledge of NuW claims assist NiW in determining the veracity of claims that that foreign intelligence services had a role in the promotion of the NuW hypothesis into the political arena? The nuclear winter controversy is a notorious example of the politicization of science. This article is extremely anaemic as it gives no sense the the level of controversy that was generated during the 80's. Now if you wish to confine this article purely to the science, well and good, but if the science is so strong why shy away from the related controversy? Perhaps we need another article that discusses the political controversy, including the alleged involvement of various intelligence agencies. Perhaps Nuclear winter controversy? --Martintg (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• The assertion by Nigel West (that the theory is wrong) is perhaps an extraordinary claim. The assertion by Tretiakov (about the KGB operation) is nothing unusual and does not contradict anything we know about the Nuclear winter theory. This is not an extraordinary claim at all. Still, there are no sources that disputed Tretiakov claim Biophys (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. --Martintg (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I debunked Earley/Tretyakov here. It IS original research, but the easily verifiable one. 89.230.208.18 (talk)

There is no reason for us to take Tretyakov's claims seriously. It's the typical conspiracy theorist pattern: he doesn't present any concrete evidence; we are supposed to believe him only because he was a member of a secret unit where he heard things. There is a group of former Russian security service officers who are making money by publishing such claims - without presenting any real evidence of course. A typical example is Alexander Litvinenko's claim, that the FSB organized the Danish cartoon controversy to punish Denmark for protecting Chechen terrorists, and that Romano Prodi is KGB agent. The more outlandish the claim, the harder it is to disprove. In short, Tretyakov is not an expert and he is not reliable in any way. Offliner (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that Tretyakov has waived any royalties from the book, so much for your theory of the profit motive. --Martintg (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are enough reliable sources to mention that some (cite who) have claimed that nuclear winter was invented by KGB, and more realistically, others (cite who) shown that the theory has played into KBG hands as a tool to infuence public opinion. The first is likely wrong, and the article makes it clear it is a well documented theory, the second one shouldn't really be that controversial, as a lot of science has been used in politics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep going from here

I've added a subheader for everyone's convenience. I just stumbled across this, and thought I'd offer a WP:30: You guys should seek mediation. not formal mediation, but mediation under something like the MEDCAB. Being a cabalist, myself, this is precisely the kind of debate that could be resolved through mediation, provided everyone agrees to cooperate and pursue the mediation. I'd even be willing to take the case myself, though I would understand if y'all didn't want that, as I am no longer purely neutral for having weighed in here. Tealwisp (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Again with the KGB

It would seem that there once was an active debate on the inclusion of allegations that the KGB were involved in this. Since the material meets all the criteria for inclusion, I am going to reinsert it. WVBluefield (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

After going over some of the talk page archives, I think the locus of the dispute lies in particular editors claiming that the material is wp:fringe or not notable. While it appears that the real reason is something more like they don’t like it, there are others who think that Earley’s work is spot on, and also think that the nuclear winter/KGB idea is entirely plausible.

COMRADE J can help to dispel our illusions. One of its suggestive passages recounts how the late Carl Sagan, a popular and prominent astro-physicist, for instance, fell for a phony program gestated by the KGB at Yuri Andropov’s request based on some draft paper that three Russians — a geophysicist, a mathematician, and a computer expert — concocted from their fantasied mathematical model about the impending “nuclear winter.” Sagan spent some years alarming the world with his campaign to disarm his own country and the West, as if Dr. Strangelove were a real person and Edward Teller a monstrous fool. Such hoaxes have regularly been propagated by the KGB and swallowed whole by scientists and the media.

[1]

more

Tretyakov puts Russian fingerprints on some previously disclosed perfidies at the UN and elsewhere. He confirms that Mr. Putin had direct knowledge of how Russian officials used the so-called "Oil for Food" program ran before the toppling of Saddam Hussein to put scores of millions of dollars into their own pockets and those of Kremlin superiors, as long suspected by investigators. He offers direct evidence that the "Nuclear Winter" scenario pushed by the late scientist — and anti-nuclear activist — Carl Sagan in the 1970s was part of a KGB-directed disinformation campaign to halt deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe by NATO.

[2]

This might not pursuade everone, but its another piece of the pie. WVBluefield (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the same old tired stuff. What has changed that you want to bring this up again? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is the same old tired stuff, and if the editors who keep putting it in would bother to look at the history of publications about NW, instead of returning to this one book like a dog to a bone, they would see that Tretyakov's assertions don't tally with the facts. Russian academics actually published on NW after those in the west. Tretyakov has been pushed on Wikipedia by editors on the secret Eastern European Mailing list, who are absolutely paranoid about the KGB but not very good at checking sources. Marshall46 (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I discuss Tretyakov's claims in full here Marshall46 (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Dodgy Russian sources

We're currently using http://www.ng.ru/style/2004-02-06/24_golitsyn.html as a source for "His conclusion that the atmosphere would be heated and that the surface of the planet would cool were published in The Herald of the Academy of Sciences in September 1983". But babelfish says it about the Hapburgs [3]. Has anyone read the original?

The other one, [4], says "Further there was the Gulf war, in Kuwait petroleum fires began. Our colleagues intended there to fly, but money it was not located. However, Americans left in Kuwait by two aircraft and observed. Their results confirmed our calculations and conclusions." I wonder if we should put that in?

That page (in the original) is the source for the Committee of Soviet Scientists in Defense of Peace, Against the Nuclear Threat headed by Russian atmospheric scientist Georgy Golitsyn, applied their research on dust-storms to the situation following a nuclear catastrophe. It isn't entirely clear exactly where in the text that occurs, let us say delicately.

Perhaps using dodgy Russian sources isn't good.

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't say anything about the second reference, but the first is wrong. It should be Igor Shumeyko, Heavy dust "nuclear winter", 2003-10-08

There Golitsyn says in interview (Google translation):

"А у меня тогда уже были работы о пыльных бурях на Марсе, и я стал разрабатывать модель для атмосферы Земли в случае больших объемов дыма и пыли. And then I have been working on the dust storms on Mars, and I began to develop a model for the Earth's atmosphere in case of large volumes of smoke and dust.

"Выходило, что атмосфера будет сильно прогреваться, а поверхность планеты - остывать. It turned out that the atmosphere will warm up much, and the surface of the planet - cool.

"Циркуляция атмосферы, конечно, изменится, испарение с поверхности океанов упадет и т.д. The circulation of the atmosphere, of course, change, evaporation from the surface of the oceans will fall, etc.

"В сентябре 1983 года все эти предсказания были опубликованы в "Вестнике Академии наук". In September 1983, all these predictions were published in the Journal of the Academy of Sciences." Marshall46 (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Freeman Dyson

I am more than a bit perplexed on why Freeman Dyson's comments are subject to dispute. He is a authoritative voice. His comments have been considered notable by other reliable sources and they are most certainly relevant to the material at hand. It would appear that at one time it was rejected because it was unsourced, but that is no longer the case. WVBluefield (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why FD is authoritative on this subject. Do please explain William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

He did write about it in his autobiography where he commented on studing the subject at some length. Several other sources, cited above, considered it noteworthy enough to also reference his thoughts on the subject. What more could you need? A better question might be “why is Carl Sagan an authority on this subject”, given his batting average when putting his theories to the test in real life situation. But I suppose that’s a topic for another day.

At least you havent brought up the ludicrous claim that this is a BLP violation again. WVBluefield (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling FD a warmonger is a clear BLP violation William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Its called satire, and Wikipedia has an excellent article on it if you are in need of further clarification. But thanks for staying on topic. WVBluefield (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to stay on topic, why are you wawsting everyones time by introducing digressions? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

it was in an edit summary so go grab that fire extinguisher because your straw man has been set ablaze. WVBluefield (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Naively, I'd hoped you might return to the subject of your own volition. But it looks like I was wrong. Ah well. You ask, weirdly, why Sagan might be considered important on this subject. The answer is, he wrote a paper that appeared in Science on the subject. You do understand the difference between a peer reviewed journal and an autobiography, don't you? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And why isnt FD considered notable when multiple other reliable sources have reproduced his thoughts on this subject? WVBluefield (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked first, you have to answer first: have you realised yet why Sagan's Science paper is more important than FD's autobio? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose because one was so full of demonstrably false information than the other? Anyhoo, I was being facetious when I suggested Sagan should be mentioned here. Now, again, why are FD's bio and all the other reliable sources that noted his comments on nuclear winter not worth inclusion here? WVBluefield (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting rather confused by all the stuff you later retract as "satire" or "facetious". You've been very unclear. BEfore we go further, can you please clearly indicate that you realise that a paper in Science carries rather more weight than an autobiography by a non-expert, no matter how eminent William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your statement, but there is pleant of room in the article for both. WVBluefield (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Freeman Dyson reference is to a series of lecture he held in Aberdeen, Scotland April-November 1985. There are two comments [5]: "I will criticize nuclear winter as harshly as I would criticize any other half-baked scientific theory"; The second is a characterization of Carl Sagan's intuition. What is the autobiography reference? Is there more substance to his critique anywhere else? Gabriel Kielland (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

Page protected, kindly discuss and seek outside help. Moreschi (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps I can offer outside help?

As far as I can see the recent edit war is basically over whether, in discussing levels of nuclear winter, it is adequate to characterise the level of war in technical quantification (TNT equivalent) or whether we should also give casualties for each war scenario for context? Is this above somewhere in the discussion. Anyway, its a reasonable question, the casualties are all scenario derived and not especially reliable but they do give some context.

Does anyone know if we have a WP:RS for estimated casualties from the climatic impact for each scenario? It seems to me that comparing deaths from direct military action versus deaths from climatic indirect action is interesting. Otherwise I guess neither casualties nor TNT is especially helpful for comparison to weather effects but we have to have some basis. --BozMo talk 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the points of my edits. The casualty figure is for the initial exchange not the subsequent climactic impacts. Thats why it was removed. I should have stated that on the talk page. WVBluefield (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear winter‎

There currently exists a content dispute over the inclusion of material from Pete Earley’s book Comrade J. Early has written a detailed account of the KGB’s involvement in pushing the Nuclear Winter theory as another front in Moscow’s efforts to stop the deployment of the Pershing Missile in Western Europe.

The editors who oppose the inclusion of this material claim its Fringe and should [sic] be given space. While the information may not be widely know, the author is well respected and

Early is clearly a reliable source on intelligence matters and his book was well received by many other journalists. Nigel West has reviewed this book (West, Nigel(2008) 'A Review of: “The New Kind of Russian Defector”', International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 21:4, 793 — 796), and he doesn't dismiss the book as unreliable or Earley's discussion of Tretyakov's claims as fringe, his only criticism was "author Pete Earley is guilty of a major irritant— failure to provide an index, thereby reducing the utility of his otherwise fine volume". Joseph C. Goulden of the Washington Times [6] and Jascha Kessler of the California Literary Reivew[7] have also given quite positive reviews not only of Early’s book but have also commented on the specific allegations, including the Nuclear Winter disinformation campaign.

Comments from outside disinterred parties would be welcomed here. WVBluefield (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Tretyakov's claims are discussed in detail here. I suggest you read and reflect. Marshall46 (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That was nice and perhaps if you can get someone to publish your thoughts they might be worth including here. WVBluefield (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Question--Is the information from Tretyakov confirmed or duplicated or supported by any source independent of him? The question of how far to believe a defector is always problematic. Besides the favorable review of Early's book cited above, are there unfavorable ones? The usual solution to questions of fringe sources which have some outside attention, as this one does, is to at least mention them with some indication of the degree to which they are taken seriously by outside authorities. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any corroboration. There is certainly none in the Crutzen and Birks paper nor in Crutzen's account in his Nobel Prize speech. Tretyakov presents his claim in a way that makes it impossible to check. He was not involved in the operation he describes and says he was told about it by a source he does not name. He refers to documents he has read but gives no citations. He does not say when the operation took place. He says that the KGB commissioned dubious research, but that it was never published. He refers to the dissemination of this unidentified research to unnamed organisations in an unspecified manner by unknown agents. That is about as far as you could get from "a detailed account" of the KGB’s involvement. It also contains errors of fact. Tretyakov is an altogether unreliable source and his story is not worthy of inclusion in a serious article about nuclear winter. West quotes Earley with approval but offers no corroboration. Goulden and Kessler know nothing about the subject and their opinions are worthless. Marshall46 (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would defer to sources outside Wikipedia to determine whether or not Tretyakov and Early are reliable, and so far the consensus is yes, they are. Other sources as early as 1984 have made allegations that “nuclear winter” was part of a soviet disinformation campaign. These include: The United States Strategic Institute v. 13 – 1985, a 1990 article by Marian Leighton in the journal “Focus on issues” also claimed that “Nuclear Winter” was a Soviet Disinformation campaign. A quick google news archive search pulls up dozens of news articles that also make this claim. What Tretyakov has done is to confirm earlier allegations not create them out of thin air. WVBluefield (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this via my talk page. The topic of Nuclear Winter is not just about the science, but also the political controversy that surrounded it at the time. The nuclear winter issue was a notorious example of the politicization of science. This article is extremely anaemic as it gives no sense the the level of controversy that was generated during the 80's. That former KGB agents come out of the wood work to claim responsibility is an indicator of that level of politicization. IMHO, regardless of the truth of Tretyakov's claims, they are verifable. At the very least a section called, say for example Politicization and the Cold War or something similar, ought to be created that discusses this political aspect along with Tretyakov's claims. --Martin (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WVB's google search is junk, and therefore worthless William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of WVB's google search, the point is that Nuclear Winter did become highly politicised in the 80's, yet this article is lacking this important aspect. Another science topic that has become politicised is Global warming and the attendant political aspects are covered in Global warming controversy and Global warming conspiracy theory. I don't know if there is sufficient material to create a stand alone article Nuclear winter controversy, so don't you think there should be at least a "Nuclear winter controversy" section? --Martin (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It’s nice to see that WMC is as on topic and as civil as ever. The references above demonstrate that there were a group of notable individuals as well as the DOD and Regan administration in the 1980's believed the Soviets were pushing “Nuclear winter” as part of a propaganda campaign. It’s also relevant that Early has a source confirming this and that he was published in an WP:RS . I am sure there is an NPOV way to present this, but WMC’s grandstanding isn’t helping move this debate along. WVBluefield (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your google search is junk. Please specify which of the top ten hits it pulls up are relevant William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your view on WVB's google search, the point is that Nuclear Winter did become highly politicised in the 80's, or don't you agree? As I said, another science topic that has become politicised is Global warming and the attendant political aspects are covered in Global warming controversy and Global warming conspiracy theory. I don't know if there is sufficient material to create a stand alone article Nuclear winter controversy, so don't you think there should be at least a "Nuclear winter controversy" section? --Martin (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is the section Policy implications with contradictory content presently. The article nuclear disarmament has the one sentence: "When the extreme danger intrinsic to nuclear war and the possession of nuclear weapons became apparent to all sides during the Cold War, a series of disarmament and nonproliferation treaties were agreed upon..." The nuclear winter scenario played an important part in this awakening. The Gorbatchev quote is the best reference in support of that opinion. There should be more. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Laurence Badash's recent book gives a detailed and measured account of the political controversy surrounding nuclear winter, and I agree with Martintg that it should be reported better here.

However, the question is not whether the Soviet Union made propaganda out of nuclear winter, but the reliability of Tretyakov. He makes a very specific allegation that cannot be verified, namely, that Crutzen and Birks were influenced by the dissemination by the KGB of falsified research authored by Kondratiev, Moiseev, Golitsin and Alexandrov. None of the supporters of Tretyakov address this. Tretyakov, by the way, does not claim responsibility: he says he was not involved in the operation. I do wonder whether his defenders have even read what he says.

It is worth adding that Tretyakov's claim is at odds with another source, which say that, as at 1985, Soviet propaganda was based entirely on Crutzen and Birks and TTAPS, and that "Soviet scientists have made no independent or new contributions to the study of the 'Nuclear Winter' phenomenon". Leon Goure,Soviet Exploitation of the "Nuclear Winter" Hypothesis, Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, Virginia, June 5, 1985 Marshall46 (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The question I am putting for the here is this: are there allegations from notable sources that the Soviets were using the concept of Nuclear Winter as part of a wider propaganda front to impact US foreign policy and are these notable enough to be included in the article? The information presented here would suggest that many sources for the 80’s did make just such a claim. Early’s work confirms the claim and we can certainly debate on its inclusion. WVBluefield (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You are avoiding the question of Tretyakov. Earley's work does not confirm the claim, it repeats the claim. That is not the same thing. I suggest you read Laurence Badash's excellent account of how NW developed and how it became a political issue. The matter is far more complicated than conservatives and KGB paranoiacs make it seem. In particular, there is some suggestion that Soviet scientists used it to attack Soviet defence policy in the same way as liberals like Sagan used it to attack US defence policy. If you would like to write a section based on Badash that would be very welcome. I'm afraid I'm too busy at the moment. Marshall46 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not avoiding anything. I stated above that since Tretyakov’s claims have been reproduced in a reliable source, namely Early’s book, and this book, the claims in it, and specifically the Nuclear Winter questions have all been favorably reviewed by experts in Intelligence matters makes it a reliable source for the purposes of inclusion here at Wikipedia. This in addition to earlier allegations of the Soviet’s using the theory to push a non scientific agenda makes Early’s work particularly noteworthy to the article. As far as Badash’s book, I have not read it but I certainly see no reason to not include it in the article. WVBluefield (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Earley is a reliable source for information about Tretyakov, as his book is based on interviews with Tretyakov. I have no doubt that Earley accurately reports what Tretyakov says, and therefore this information is quite properly included in the article on Tretyakov.

But if Tretyakov's claims on NW are to be included here, it is not Earley who has to be reliable but Tretyakov. Tretyakov gives no sources for his claims, does not provide basic information about when the events took place, who was involved, what were the organisations to which information was distributed or in which way Ambio was targeted. His claims cannot be checked and have not been corroborated. The relevant evidence (e.g. Crutzen's paper in Ambio, Crutzen's Nobel Prize Speech, the Leon Goure article and Badash's history of Nuclear Winter) points to the fact that, contrary to what Tretyakov says, NW was developed mainly in the United States and Western Europe, with Russian scientists following behind. Tretyakov's claim is so wacky and far out that the only reasons an editor could have for including it in the article on NW is muddled thinking, gullibility or prejudice.

The reviews referred to are reviews of Earley, not of Tretyakov. As far as support or corroboration is concerned, book reviews are beside the point unless they are written by those who can confirm what the book contains. That is not the case here, as all the reviewers do is praise Earley. They make no claim to knowledge of the development of NW or of the operation Tretyakov describes.

I am not sure what is meant by "the Soviet’s using the theory to push a non scientific agenda". If it means that the Soviet Union used the NW theory in diplomacy, I can't see how in any way that demonstrates the validity of Tretyakov's claim that NW was a myth invented by the KGB. Marshall46 (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Kearney

From the section on "Scientic criticism" I have removed a passage that reported Kearney's opinion that the NW hypothesis was largely propaganda. This was replaced, with the following explanation: "without Dyson, the other material is a copied verbatim from the source and was condensed". I cannot understand this. A scientist's personal opinion, and in particular his opinion on other people's motives, as opposed to his professional judgment on scientific matter, does not constitute scientific criticism. Marshall46 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

you have a point and I fixed it with my subsequent edit. WVBluefield (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A "Minor" Nuclear War is "50 detonations"?

Seriously? WWII was a minor nuclear war...50 detonations is not minor, regardless of size, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.95.175 (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. A large scale nuclear exchange would consist of hundreds, not if thousands nuclear explosions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.20.165 (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy implications

I found the two paragraphs under this heading to be contradictory. The first one seems to say that research into nuclear winter didn't have any implications on policy. But the second states that Gorbachev was directly moved by the research. Agentchuck (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The second is probably wrong :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The first is wrong, but except for the Gorbatchev quote I cannot prove it. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The article actually says that the research made no substantial difference to policy. Its policy implications and the policy lobbying that took place still have to be written up. If anyone has read Laurence Badash's recent book, perhaps they could take it from there. Marshall46 (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In 1983 the US abandoned a doctrine of mutual assured destruction to be replaced with the Strategic Defense Initiative. The nuclear winter research obviously played a part. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Badash on page 163:

- At a press conference on 11 February 1985, president Reagan spoke of NW in terms that seemed to signify acceptance of its likelihood: "And they called it the year [1816] in which there was no summer. Now if one volcano can do that, what are we talking about with the whole nuclear exchange, the nuclear winter that scientists have been talking about?" By the following month ... the administration had all but embraced NW ... With amazing cheek, Secretary of Defence Caspar Weinberger asserted that the new geophysical conditions nuclear war might bring changed no current policies but instead supported them.

Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This would take effect instantly

..."This would take effect instantly"...

What? In less than a second?--Theo Pardilla (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Rm myth etc: why

I took this out:

The original work by Sagan and others was criticized as a "myth" and "discredited theory" in the 1987 book Nuclear War Survival Skills, a civil defense manual by Cresson Kearny for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Kearny said the maximum estimated temperature drop would be only about by 20 degrees Fahrenheit, and that this amount of cooling would last only a few days. He also suggested that a global nuclear war would indeed result in millions of deaths from hunger, but primarily due to cessation of international food supplies, rather than due to climate changes.

This looks to be from a highly-partisan and non-scientific source. It does claim to quote actual science: if you can find the actual science, that would do William M. Connolley (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Tretyakov

I have removed this passage:

Former KGB officer Sergei Tretyakov, after defecting to the US, claimed that the early nuclear winter work of Moiseyev and Aleksandrov was promoted by the KGB as part of a disinformation campaign. Tretyakov told his biographer "I was told the Soviet scientists knew this theory was completely ridiculous. There were no legitimate scientific facts to support it. But it was exactly what Andropov needed to cause terror in the West."

Three reasons:

• It was put under "Policy Implications", and it does not refer to the policy implications of the nuclear winter hypothesis.

• It is inaccurate. Tretyakov did not claim that the early work of Moiseyev and Alexandrov was promoted by the KGB as part of a disinformation campaign. He claimed that the KGB ordered Kirill Kondratyev, Georgii Golitsyn, Nikita Moiseyev and Vladimir Alexandrov to forge scientific papers about dust storms after a nuclear war.

• It is a fringe theory. Tretyakov is the only only person who has made the claim and it has received no corroboration. It has been repeated by Tretyakov's supporters, but repetition is not corroboration. What is more, Tretyakov makes it plain that, as a KGB officer, he was not personally involved in the alleged episode, and he gives no source for the story. The claim is inherently unlikely because, according to Tretyakov, the papers were never published and have never been identified, their chronology is vague, Kondratyev published on the topic openly in a western academic journal long before the nuclear winter theory developed, and western academics published on the topic before Golitsyn, Moiseyev and Alexandrov. The claim is given due weight in the article about Tretyakov, but it does not deserve to be repeated here. Marshall46 (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved it into policy because it seemed closer to that than science. I have the same objections to this text as I had before; the difference this times was that it was all phrased as "T says..." which was more tolerable. But I have no complaints about it being removed William M. Connolley (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Random Pictures?

This article seems to have too many pictures that are relatively unrelated to the subject. They depict various nuclear tests and questionably, a home in winter. Furthermore, none of the images have descriptions (that would be irrelevant anyways. I suggest we remove all or most of these images. Xomm 02:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xomm (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Marshall46 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also agreed. Cliko (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)