As the Warmista Drones are trying to erase a person, along with rewriting history, and are trying to delete this page from the Wikipedia, I am preserving it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Leroux
Marcel Leroux
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia’s deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article’s entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guideline for academics. (August 2012)
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards. (November 2011)
This article may rely too heavily on sources with too close a tie to the subject to be verifiable and neutral. (November 2011)
Marcel Leroux (27 August 1938 – 12 August 2008) was a French climatologist, a former Professor of Climatology at Jean Moulin University in Lyon, France, and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risk, and Environment. He was made a chevalier (knight) in the Ordre des Palmes académiques on 31 October 2002.
Leroux defended his PhD on climatology entitled “The Climate of Tropical Africa” in 1980. In 1983, a condensed version of his state doctoral thesis in climatology “Le Climat de l’Afrique Tropicale” was published by Champion-Slatkine financially supported principally by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in Geneva, and by the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), the Ministry for Cooperation and Development (MCD) and the Agency for Technical and Cultural Cooperation (ACCT) in Paris.
Leroux argues in his book “Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Erring Ways of Climatology” that the case for global warming is based on models which, with their insufficiencies in the understanding and explanation of weather phenomena, are not reliable to support this prediction. He also poses the question if warming may be considered a benefit in some regions.
On the causes of climate change, he writes in a section entitled “Conclusion: The greenhouse effect is not the cause of climate change”: “The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, with climatic consequences slowed by the inertial effect of glacial accumulations; solar activity, thought by some to be responsible for half of the 0.6°C rise in temperature, and by others to be responsible for all of it, which situation certainly calls for further analysis; volcanism and its associated aerosols (and especially sulphates), whose (short-term) effects are indubitable; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. ” [1]
Scientific Contribution
Leroux’ work is intended to demonstrate through the analysis of synoptic maps, satellite imagery, meteorological and palaeoenvironmental data over Tropical Africa, that the seasonal and palaeoclimatic migration of the Meteorological Equator represents a reliable proxy of the Earth’s climate evolution.[2][3]
In his theory, this migration and the extent of the Meteorological Equator are the consequence of continuous meridional exchanges in the denser, lower layers of the atmosphere, which circulation is governed by the incessant ballet of the Mobile Polar Highs or Anticyclone Mobile Polaire, 1.5 km high, 3,000 km diameter discoid, lenticular cold air-masses anticyclones originating from the poles, whose strength and frequency depends directly on the thermal polar deficit. Cooling spurns an accelerated circulation while warming will slow the general circulation and exchanges.[4]
His argument is that the aerological spaces of circulation, zones of continuous circulation from the pole to the equator are bound by relief over 2,000m and the present position of continents. In light of direct observations [2][5], Leroux’s reconstruction, if correct, would show the inconsistencies of previous general circulation models, of oscillation indexes and of frontological, dynamical, reductionist and diagnostic schools of meteorology. This made him a controversial figure.
In doing so, Leroux work has been considered to refute the artificial separation between Meteorology and Climatology and through the MPH concept, redefines both disciplines in a similar way Plate Tectonics revolutionized Earth Sciences in the 1960s. He reconstructed the geometry of the troposphere general circulation[4] and demonstrated that very little is owed to hazard or chaos: there is no ‘unruly climate’ but intensity shifts of the sum of weather processes that constitute the climate. This research would indicate that the climatic shift observed since the 1970s corresponds to the setting of an accelerated mode of circulation, always associated with cooling during the late Quaternary palaeoclimatic evolution, and its meteorological consequences: contrasted weather, stronger mid-latitude storms, increase water vapour in the troposphere and impermanent anticyclonic stability over continents leading to vigorous cold snaps in winter and heatwaves in summer.[5]
In consequence, his views refute the validity of a Global Mean Temperature curve as a major climatic proxy and contradict the assumption that weather changes observed in the second half of the 20th century were the consequence of an Anthropogenic Global Warming climatic change brought by the release of greenhouse gases due to industrial and human activities.[1]
In general, his hypotheses provide the meteorological mechanism for past glaciations and de-glaciations, improves meteorological prediction models and climate simulation accuracy in constraining them through the real geometry of atmospheric circulation, its discontinuities, energy exchanges and their associated clouds.[5]
The English 2nd edition of “Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate, Atmospheric Circulation, Perturbations, Climatic Evolution” was completed in 2008 two months before his death and published in January 2010.[5]
References
^ a b Leroux, Marcel (2005-08-30) (Hardcover). Global Warming – Myth Or Reality?. Springer Praxis. p. 510. ISBN 3-540-23909-X.
^ a b Leroux M. (1983). PhD. Thesis : Le climat de l’Afrique tropicale. Ed. H. Champion/M. Slatkine, Paris/Genève, t.1. : 636 p., 349 fig., t. 2 : notice et atlas de 250 cartes
^ Leroux, Marcel (2002-01-01) (Hardcover). The Meteorology and Climate of Tropical Africa. Springer Praxis. p. 548. ISBN 3-540-42636-1.
^ a b The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes” Marcel Leroux, Global and Planetary Change, 7 (1993) 69-93 Elsevier Science Publishers B V, Amsterdam
^ a b c d Leroux, Marcel. “Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate Atmospheric Circulation, Perturbations, Climatic Evolution”, Springer-Praxis books in Environmental Sciences, 2nd ed., 2010, 440p., ISBN 978-3-642-04679-7
External links
Laboratoire de Climatologie, Risques, Environnement
Marcel Leroux no longer with us, European Tribune, Aug 14th, 2008
Categories:
Wikipedia pages needing cleanup from November 2011
Climatologists
1938 births
2008 deaths
French scientists
Environmental skepticism
This page was last modified on 29 September 2012 at 00:22.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.
Musings from the Chiefio 
It is not yet deleted. I have completed a favorable review (based on the content of the Wiki page) at the bottom of the page, and stated that I have relevant and knowledgeable university qualifications (including fluid dynamics). I have not read his book but I have read about him. Had a quick look at the link above to L de C. My French is only at schoolboy reading standard but can grasp some of the technical points. What I read makes sense but is not likely to be the complete story. However, his point of view should not be dismissed or deleted from Wiki. I would surmise that Leroux was more knowledgeable than the likes of Hansen, Trenberth or Gavin Schmidt; maybe that is why some alarmists want to delete the page.
Thank you, E.M. Smith for posting the information about the climatologist, Marcel Leroux.
I agree, there is a similarity between destroying information and people with drone planes.
Whether the destruction of research integrity and constitutional limits on government were caused by capitalists like these:
_ http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=28485.0
Or by deception about Japan’s A-bombs by Soviet communists
_ http://www.my-jia.com/The_Flight_of_the_Hog_Wild/Atlanta_Constitution.htm
_ http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1127
Our first priority must be the return of
a.) Constitutional limits on government, and
b.) Integrity in government research reports
Nobody is safe when the government established to protect us is instead working to deceive us.
Perhaps communists and capitalists are one and the same under the totalitarian government George Orwell warned us about in 1948
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984
Hmmm… and six edits from William M. Connolley in the last two days. Thought I would never see that again – I thought we finally got rid of him for good. I’m not fond of editors whose tutelary animal is an over fed ferret – Mustela erminea. He does have a valid point with demanding citations to restore his deletions though.
I’m actually surprised that this article hasn’t been flagged for Neutral Point of View as well.
From a Wikipedia point of view all of the complaints with this article seem perfectly legit particularly 1 and 3.
1] Academic notability.
2] Quality standards.
3] Relying [entirely] on sources too close to the subject to be both neutral and verifiable.
It’s the academic notability standard issue that seem to have triggered the page deletion process. If Dr. Leroux is an academic notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, it shouldn’t be too hard to find some evidence with third party citations to establish this. In its current state it’s hard to argue against the editors, who are asking for deletion. I’m not in favor of deletion in this case, but I am in favor of haranguing [politely] the original editors enough to finish their article and bring it up to standards, and maybe setting a reasonable time period for doing so – a couple of months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
Three points in the Wiki policy seem to be directly relevant here.
1] We require that all articles rely primarily on “third-party” or “independent sources” so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization.
2] We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia: No original research’s requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.
3] We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author’s point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the “multiple” requirement.
The statement: “multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose”, is particularly relevant here.
I believe that all of the problems with this article can be remedied with some effort, by expanding and rewriting the article, with appropriate citations to sources who are not Dr. Leroux himself. If you think Dr. Leroux and his reputation are being slighted, time to roll up your sleeves and do the research and editing necessary to bring the article up to snuff.
Wikipedia: With use comes the responsibility to contribute.
W^3
Truth (reality) is relative and is constantly being reinvented, and we take a perverse delight in killing those we do not agree with –or at least in burning their books and papers after they’re gone; we are so petty and intentionally forget more than we will ever know. We are a very strange ape indeed. (If it ain’t the water that making us stupid, it must be the bananas!;-)
Ideas as product of the spirit have a stubborn tendency to prevail and they are intrinsically impossible to delete, erase, disappear, that is why Drones and Fools alike, won´t succeed in killing the human soul.
The psychological study of these behaviors always will find them a pathological anachronism of a not resolved and prolonged childhood, a prevalence of the anal stage.
In other similar cases, where there is a strong emotional component, as in the fanatical persecution of “smoking”, “reproduction”, “family”, etc. (strangely found among “liberals”), it reveals a translocation of the libido, where it has not evolved properly.
Thanks for preserving it for us.
“The possible causes, then, of climate change are: …and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. ”
Water vapor is the greenhouse gas. Any back radiation from co2 is completely lost except in an extremely dry, desert airspace.
What Adolfo said. Little Dutch boy with his finger in a leak.
@Pascvaks: Truth (reality) is relative and is constantly being reinvented
Truth is ONE , our interpretations of it are MANY. Truth is Cosmogony, natural laws which apply to everything: Its shorter formulations would be: ALPHA & OMEGA, and “As above so below”.
In FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 410 see http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/Y2787E00.HTM by Prof Leonid Klyashtorin, Leroux is mentioned in section 2 Dynamics of Climatic and Geophysical Indices as follows “It was found that “zonal” epochs correspond to the periods of global warming and the meridional ones correspond to the periods of global cooling. (Lamb 1972; Lambeck 1980). The generalised time series on the atmospheric circulation forms for 1891-1999 were kindly placed at our disposal by the Federal Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) in St. Petersburg (Russia). This is also consistent with the theories and observations described by Leroux (1998)”. Russian Scientists do not believe that CO2 has any affect on climate and their climate models do not include it.
Alarmists want to exclude any scientific evidence that is not in accordance with their beliefs. That is not science.
FYI – Coincident mention of Leroux work at Bob Tisdale : “On the Record High Sea Surface Temperatures for the
Northeast Continental Shelf”, Posted on September 25, 2012, http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/on-the-record-high-sea-surface-temperatures-for-the-northeast-continental-shelf/ (It’s a Small World;-)
Some nice quotes from Leroux:
It is galling to see the media ‘hype’ which ensues every time a meeting of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is announced, every time an extra drop of rain falls here, or fails to fall there, or every time a door slams because the wind is blowing a bit more strongly than is ‘normal’. How irksome it is to hear the simplistic slogans, and sometimes barefaced lies, churned out yet again; to have to put up with the Diktat of an ‘official line’ and the parroted pronouncements of the ‘climatically correct’, numbing all reflection. It becomes over more difficult to stomach the kind of well-intentioned naïvety or foolishness which, through the medium of tearful reportage, tugs at our heart strings with tales of doomed polar bears, or islanders waiting for the water to lap around their ankles …
Hardly a week goes by without some new ‘scoop’ of this nature filling our screens and the pages of our newspapers. ‘Global warming’, caused by the ‘greenhouse effect’, is our fault, just like everything else, and the message/slogan/misinformation becomes ever more simplistic, ever cruder! It could not be simpler: if the rain falls or drought strikes; if the wind blows a gale or there is none at all; whether it’s heat or hard frost; it’s all ‘because of the greenhouse effect’, and we are to blame! An easy argument but stupid! The Fourth Report of the IPCC might just as well decree the suppression of all climatological textbooks, and replace them in our schools and universities with its press communiqués!
[…]
As a Professor of Climatology, my employer is the French Republic, which has adopted the official religion of ‘climate change’, to which I do not adhere. I am not beholden to any ‘slush fund’, and my Laboratoire de Climatologique, Risques, Environment (LCRE), in spite of its links with the Centre National de la Rechererche Scientifique (CNRS), has never received any funding from this state institution, certainly by reason of heresy. I am neither a militant nor an armchair ‘eco-warrior’, but I live in the countryside, near the littlel village of Vauvenargues, near Aix-en-Provence, on the ‘Grand Site Sainte Victoire’ (immortalized by the painter Paul Cézanne), a listed and protected area of mountains and wild forests. I grow vegetables in my (small) ‘organic’ kitchen garden. I am naturally inclined to question things, and I am basically a Cartesian, living by Réne Descartes’ primary precept of ‘never assuming anything to be true which I did not know evidently to be such’ (Discours de la Méthode, 1637).
The workings of ‘Wikapedia’ are unknown to me, but, if a subject was worth mention before, why attempt to delete them now?
Surely it would be better to include the subject as ‘discredited’!
‘False interpretation’ has its place in ‘interpretations’ of ‘whatever’ by virtue of their ‘historic significance’.
The ‘subject’ deserves a mention ‘somewhere’, if only because they were previously accredited (the ‘object’ being ‘climatology’)!
Best regards, Ray Dart.
Long live ‘live’ discussion. :)
Best regards, Ray Dart.
@Suricat:
Wikipedia has ‘strange and wonderful’ methods… ;-)
Basically, it’s a social argument with the ‘consensus’ determining the articles that live and die. This works reasonably well for many things (like “what is an alternator” where arguments over ‘generator vs alternator’ don’t really change much) but fails catastrophically on politically charged (i.e. manipulated) things. Then it is more like Hatfields and McCoys. And only one can win.
So Leroux has committed Climate Heresy, so not only is to be excommunicated, but in the best tradition of ancient Egypt, his name must be erased from history lest his spirit live in the afterlife…
@ suricat
“The workings of ‘Wikapedia’ are unknown to me, but, if a subject was worth mention before, why attempt to delete them now?”
The original worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia of the Marcel Leroux page has not been established, and seems to be a central point of the delete or don’t delete controversy – from a Wikipedia insiders point of view.
The issue with the Marcel Leroux page, as I commented above, is that it does not seem to meet the standard of “notability” according to Wikipedia’s published standards. [refer to my comment above for a link to that info] Pages that do not meet Wikipedia quality standards, and that do not get brought up to standard, get deleted all the time. It is also true that pages with serious problems linger for longer than they should without being improved or deleted.
@ E.M.
You are correct in that Wikipedia does represent some kind of a social argument about what represents the scientific ‘consensus’ about any particular topic at any moment of time. This is different somehow than the way things are actually done anywhere else in academia? You are also correct that Wikipedia’s current structure and procedures are not up to dealing with controversial topics. There are simply too many editors who lack the self-restraint, knowledge or who are outright crazy who have access to editing these pages. Then there are of course the editors with real agendas like Stoat Connolley [and the homeopathy people]. This is a real problem, and one that Wikipedia has been grappling with for years. Wikipedia requires some institutional changes to get hold of this particular beast. There will also have to be some social evolution in society as well.
The Marcel Leroux page may represent yet another tug-of-war between two rival camps of wiki-editors, one who believes that Leroux is a climate heretic who must not only be, “excommunicated, but in the best tradition of ancient Egypt, his name must be erased from history lest his spirit live in the afterlife…”, and one who believes that Leroux is a climate ‘prophet’. My position is that the Marcel Leroux page needs to be improved sufficiently to eliminate the arguments for its deletion – or deleted if no one is willing to trouble themselves to do that.
The unique thing about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is that because of its nature as an open source work-in-progress, very keystroke of every edit, and every word of every discussion on every Talk Page, is logged permanently for the life of a page or the life of Wikipedia. I’m not sure what happens to the data and metadata of deleted pages.
‘Dead Tree’ encyclopedias, on the other hand, are completely opaque to the process by which they determine what the scientific ‘consensus’ is. For an encyclopedia like Britannica, it may be one or two guys who determine what school children for generation to come are going to think what ‘reality’ is; who knows what went on back in the editorial offices deciding what to include and what to exclude. If nothing else, children raised in the Wiki age are going to learn early on that the scientific ‘consensus’ is something that is socially arbitrated, and that they have a stake in the process – I think that’s pretty great – what ever the flaws in the current revision of the wiki-consensus might be.
So, if you are concerned that the Marcel Leroux page might be deleted, the onus is on you to bring it up to standards as worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.
From my own User Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atani
“Quite simply put, massively collaborative projects such as Wikipedia are the way Humanity will do things in the future. If you wish to be part of Humanity’s future you must learn to participate and to contribute in what ever way your resources and talents allow, and your inclinations direct you.”
Learn how.
W^3
@W^3:
I am of limited means and capacities. I’ve already contributed to wiki-media. I was in the process of getting signed up for wikipedia (but they didn’t like my desired login name – that I use absolutely everywhere) when the whole depth of depravity of what was being done to the pages via Connolly and his ilk broke. Since then, frankly, I’ve been underwhelmed at the potential for a heretic like me to displace “consensus” (having looked at how the process “works”).
So I have chosen to put my efforts in to things that have a higher probability of ROI of time.
The first step is just to shine a bright light on the censorship. Enough of that and others can be leveraged into the editing.
In other words: It takes a mob to beat a mob. I’m looking for rabble to ‘organize’ as my highest and best use.
@E.M. However you could have “bug it” :-)
Pingback: Stoat – Tutelary Beast on the Loose Again-Wikipedia and humanity’s next great leap-What’s up with that? | The Coraline Meme
Thank you for preserving this. The Connolley AGW tag team at Wikipedia is truly scandalous. How is it that failed Green Party candidate and Michael Mann toady, William Connolley deserves an article at Wikipedia, yet esteemed Climate Scientist, Dr. Marcel Leroux does not? Connolley has been given a lifetime Wikipedia ban from editing biographies, but I guess dead scientists are still fair game. Disgusting Watermelons.