Talk:Global climate change/Archive one

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Pointless

(William M. Connolley 10:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) This page appears to be entirely pointless. Climate change already exists. I suggest returning this page to its redirect slumber.

I concur.--Silverback 10:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments moved here from climate change page

(William M. Connolley 09:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I really can't see the point of having GCC on top of CC. There is nothing new there.

I agree...pointless multiplication of articles with slightly different titles, and much more vague information seems to be a hinderance more than a help. Mackinaw 17:21, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Merge

Some info in global climate change has not been moved into climate change yet. Please postpone redirect until climate change contains all relevant info in both articles. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I couldn't seee any useful info on there. But if you want it, the text is in the history and always available to you. Just put a reminder on your user page if you're in danger of forgetting. Starting a new page that only differs from Cl Ch in having "global" in the title makes no sense.

Perpetuating confusion

If you want to continue having a nonsensical section of Wikipedia about global climate change, I will not have it. The pages on climate change and global warming in particular are a horrible mess.

(William M. Connolley 21:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) There are some underisbale features of those pages (from my POV, the main problem is that they are skeptic-biased) but no, they are not a horrible mess. And even if they were, the correct response is to try to work on them, not to create your own pet page.
This is not a "pet" page. If anything, GW seems to be your pet page. I find that the structure of these concepts are wrong. I made this page to begin to correct the structure and make it in line with the science.--Ben 22:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is not Connolley's page, although he has significantly improved its quality. It is a community page, and your pet page without first participating, seems quite anti-communitarian and wasteful of resources.--Silverback 01:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


(William M. Connolley 22:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I've heavily edited GW, doing my best to counter excess septicism (which, by some of your comments, I would expect you to approve of). But its not my pet: I didn't create it, and it doesn't duplicate whats elsewhere.

Global warming is simply one type of global climate change, and furthermore, climate change in and of itself is not inherently global.

(William M. Connolley 21:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) That is technically just about true, but in practice not very meaningful. Read the climate change page. Its almost all about climate change from a global perspective.
Exactly my point. --Ben 22:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Your point was... that climate change was about global cl ch...so you created a page called gcc? I'm afraid I've missed your point.


Those pages contain duplicate information, unrelated information, speculations, and gross misinterpretations of the terms.

(William M. Connolley 21:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) No they don't.


This is from someone with an outside point of view who is not involved with the apparently endless infighting on your talk pages. If you do not even know what the terms you discuss mean, perhaps you should find out. For instance "climate models" should not be in the global warming section, it should be in the climate change section.

(William M. Connolley 21:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Climate models are on their own page, as they should be.
And climate models should be linked to and discussed on the climate change page. They are only mentioned there in the section entitled "Evaluation of the relative importance of various factors"--Ben 22:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) No problem. Feel free.

Global warming does not need a climate model to be proven that it is true. It merely needs to demonstrate average temperature is increasing, which it has.

(William M. Connolley 21:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) But climate models are useful to attribution of recent climate change.
Yes they are, however I don't see the contrast of your point.
Because GW is about more than change in temperature... its a whole raft of things, including what to do about it. Which can't be answered without knowing what caused it. Which requires models.


The effects are a different matter and should be in "global climate change". "Climate change" completely ignores discussing climatological eras in depth such as the ice age, the medieval warm period, or any other eras which could be put onto the "global climate change" page.

(William M. Connolley 21:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Perhaps the little ice age should be discussed on Little ice age... oh, wait, it already is. And Medieval warm period... oh wait,...
That's why I linked to them on the global climate change page. I know this. My point is that there is no list of climate changes, just two examples. I'm sure there are more.--Ben 22:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Just because something is popularily used in one way does not mean it is the scientific definition Climate change is a general term for any change in climate, globally, or regionally.

Also considering that climate forcings was a page I had to make myself because it was not even used on the global warming, or climate change pages, it seems a lot of people here do not know what they are talking about.

(William M. Connolley 21:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Climate forcings largely duplicates, but more weakly, material already on the climate change page.
That's what is called a stub. Climate forcings needs its own page. A lot of stuff that is duplicated on both the GW and Climate change pages can be moved there. As well, discussion about the various theories of the various effects of climate forcings, or if indeed certain things like greenhouse gases can even be considered climate forcings are. --Ben 22:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) If you're planning to strip stuff wholesale out of cl ch or gw pages: please don't without discussing it first.

I find it extremely frustrating that this is dismissed out of hand, and even more so that someone is already trying to "merge" this with climate change. If proper discussion does NOT take place I WILL take matters into my own hands. That's the great thing about Wikipedia isn't it?

  • "Climate change is a long-term shift or alteration in the climate of a specific location, a region or the entire planet. The shift is measured by changes in some or all the features associated with average weather, such as temperature, wind patterns and precipitation. A change in the variability of climate is also considered climate change, even if average weather conditions remain unchanged." [1]
(William M. Connolley 21:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Yep, thats fine, no problem with that.
Then you agree that "Climate Change" encompasses both regional and global climate change? The climate change page doesn't read that way to me. Regional climate changes are not included nor discussed. For example, the urban heat island effect, which, while it may contribute to global climate change, is an entirely local and is not effected by global climate change. In fact, the opening line of that page is "changes in Earth's climate" which implies that the term refers only to global climate. If anything, it's far to ambiguous and should be corrected.
(William M. Connolley 22:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) If you think the cl ch page could do with some changes, then try changing it. Don't create a new, duplicate page though.
  • "Climate change refers to general shifts in climate, including temperature, precipitation, winds, and other factors. This may vary from region to region. On the other hand, global warming (as well as global cooling) refers specifically to any change in the global average surface temperature.
(William M. Connolley 21:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) No. GW is far more than just ch in avg T.
Well you can take that up with the Metereological Service of Canada, the source of the quote. I presume you are better qualified to comment on the usage of the terms than they are? --Ben 22:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Yes.
And you have a PhD in what? And you have written which research papers on climate change? And you work in the field of climatology or metereology for who? Somehow I highly doubt this. You do realize that Metereological Service of Canada is a federally run government agency right? I hope you have better credentials than this guy: Stewart Cohen PhD, who is the Climate and Climate Change Impact spokesperson for the Communications Directorate of MSC. But hey, feel free to point out the error you noticed to him. Call up the Communications department and leave him a message, the number is on the "Spokespeople" page which is linked on the left. --Ben 01:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 09:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Are you really too lazy to read my user page?
Apparently, yes, I'm "too lazy". I don't know why you don't explain your answers, why you seem to be so confrontational (not just with me but with others on the talk pages), and why you're not upfront with everything.
(William M. Connolley 20:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)) You haven't been around long but have produced an awful lot of words on the talk pages and very little on the science pages. You enthusiasm is refreshing but please settle down and do some basic work before stirring pu controversy. How about adding some nice facts, or fleshing out your forcings page, or something. In fact, filling out your own useer page would be a good start.
I think your manner of discourse is unbecoming of someone of your stature.
(William M. Connolley 20:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)) If thats an apology for your sneering above about my qualifications, its a very weak one. The wiki cliamte pages get heated at times, this can be avoided if you check your facts first.
I must explain myself here: I do not apologize, since it is obvious I had no idea what your qualifications are, and could not have knowingly been "sneering" at them. The only way I could have known your qualifications is by going to your user page, which you correctly guessed I did not do. Not knowing your qualifications is something that is not my fault. You made little effort to provide them, even when I brought them into question. I am confused why you would interpret the statement, which is obviously an intentional insult pertaining to your conduct on these pages, as an apology. To explain, it is an insult regarding the contemptuous manner in which you conduct yourself, not an apology for something I needn't apologize for. Furthermore, you continue to show utter contempt for my ideas by ignoring them. My proposed changes have been there the whole time you spent replying. I hope my opinion is clear. --Ben 22:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"made little effort"? William provided a user page. "brought them into question"? You sneered and made an ad hominen attack on credentials instead of addressing the issues. "contemptuous?", you are proposing changes without learning the lay of the ground and have been jumping to conclusions about motivations and criticising the current pages apparently out of ignorance of the science.--Silverback 03:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't normally check people's user pages. And yes, I did make an ad hominem attack, that was the point of the insult. I think it is far more contemptuous when I start I page, have it determined as "pointless" and redirected with no explanation, then, even while accepting that, I put forward my position as to why I think this page needs to exist and the responses are limited to "You are wrong." or snide comments. I'm sorry, but if people act like King Shit, they deserve to be treated like it. I am proposing changes, I made one change and I was hoping it would further discussion. Instead I get snide one sentence comments, even on the sources I believe with good reason and sound judgement to be representative of the science. Ridiculous. You should not be surprised that it makes me angry. I wouldn't have made those comments if I was treated to an explanation and to some respect for my ideas. --Ben 00:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And you still have not convinced me that the term GW refers to anything more than "any change in the global average surface temperature". Reading that helped my understanding, unlike reading your responses. I personally think you are reading into it far too much, mixing things in, dismissing the base concepts as trivial, and in doing so confusing people who want to understand it. These articles are not for fellow scientists, these are for people who want to learn about the subject. I mean the global warming article is apparently not about global warming, but about theories which account for global warming and politics.
You apparently have a POV that the science is settled in this area, and want to trivialize the issues. If you simplify and make things too basic, you will probably end up making false statements.--Silverback 04:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)) The historical temperature record is under... well, I think you can guess. That seems fairly reasonable. Its also clearly linked from the GW page.
And either many little changes have messed it up or I don't know if someone wrote it this way, but I mean: "Another cause of great concern to some is sea level rise?" Why not say "Another predicted effect is sea level rise?" Who cares who is concerned and who is not? I mean, I can just scan the article and come up with ridiculous lines like that. Maybe the concern is worked in because the "potential effects" section gets the government and politics in right off the bat. Maybe you are trying too hard to be neutral, I think in doing so the article suffers badly.
The point is that the field is politicized, and your proposals have been commented on, and much of the science, especially when it comes to predictions and the assumptions in those predictions and the "remedies" proposed and the predictions of the effects of those remedies are in dispute. So your proposal to disperse the information over a much larger number of pages based on your pet classification scheme, increases the chances of questionable information getting into the pages without the benefit of quality review.--Silverback 04:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, now they've been commented on, and hopefully there can be a discussion. The articles should comment on the politicization, not be part of it. I see noone else coming up with solutions, though I gather everyone is in agreement that the pages are messy. My proposal is not to disperse the information, but to re-organize. Yes, if you want to call it my "pet classification scheme" go ahead. It is the classification scheme I have come up with. No one else has come up with one. I think it decreases the chance of questionable info getting into the pages. --Ben 00:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And thanks for commenting on my proposal... oh wait, you've entirely ignored it. I'm already not surprised you would rather "put me in my place" than comment. All I was saying was that here was the MSC telling me something, and to me you are just some guy on the internet who has caused all sorts of trouble, so I went with who I trusted and what made sense to me. You're reply: "No. That's wrong." Well, guess what, I might just end up changing these pages with or without you, whether I'm right or wrong. What a tragedy that would be if I made a blunder. So goes it though, if you aren't going to even discuss it it will be your loss. --Ben 19:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That's the attitude, generate a lot of pages by yourself, before you have ever participated in the give and take of the process, the hubris of authorship. There is a community here if you are willing to participate. You do no service when you dumb down the science. You can publish your pet stuff on your own pages, that the community has stated it does not want to exist, review or monitor and turn wiki into your own vanity press, or you can participate on the current pages, see if your ideas and understanding survive review and perhaps occasionally help the community reach a consensus on when new pages are really needed. You still haven't commented on my climate forcings proposal on another page, see how frustrating a frivolous proliferation of pages is, hmmm, you weren't willing to go to williams page either. 8-) --Silverback 04:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I generated two pages. Global Climate Change, and Climate Forcings. The community has not stated that it does not want these pages to exist, in fact it is just you two who have felt the need to voice your opinions upon the subject. I have commented on the climate forcings page because I hadn't realized you had commented on it. WMC could hardly have missed the proposal I made, especially when considering the contents at the top are more than twice as big now.
WMC: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. --Ben 22:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • In other words, global warming or cooling is one type of planetary scale climate change. Global warming is often misunderstood to imply that the world will warm uniformly. In fact, an increase in average global temperature will also cause the circulation of the atmosphere to change, resulting in some areas of the world warming more, while other areas warming less than the average. Some areas can even cool.... ...the term ‘climate change' is the more accurate description of how climate system responds to a forcing. Unfortunately, although it can significantly misrepresent what really happens, the term ‘global warming' is still often used by media and others to describe climate change." [2]
(William M. Connolley 21:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Which is why the GW page is careful to distinguish between Cl Ch and GW.
I don't find that it does, the organization is climate change centric. In fact I find that it incorrectly implies that there is doubt that there has been an increase in average temperature at all, considering the definition of global warming. The only doubt could be that the math done on the historical temperature records is wrong, or that the records themselves are wrong. That should be on the global warming page, but most of the other stuff should not, or at least be organized better. --Ben 22:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Then you've failed to read para 2 on the gw page, which says: Use of the term "global warming" generally implies a human influence — the more neutral term climate change is usually used for a change in climate with no presumption as to cause and no characterization of the kind of change involved. Sometimes the term anthropogenic climate change is used to indicate the presumption of human influence. The Kyoto Protocol proposes binding greenhouse gas limits for developed countries. (hmmm... whats that last sentence doing there?)

--Ben 20:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Its a mystery to me why you are so het up about this. Slow down. There are 4 (maybe 3, depending on how Eds comment is counted) votes to restore GCC to the redirect. Stop and think why 3-4 people disagree with you and noone agrees. You might also want to look at User:William M. Connolley/Wiki pages related to climate change
I am upset because these articles sow confusion, do not further discussion, and in doing so imply doubt as to the validity of the science. If someone says they don't "believe" in global warming, what, exactly, are they even talking about? Most couldn't tell you. To me that shows that proper conveyance of the information in a structured and organized way must be done to remove the confusion, otherwise people are going to continue misunderstanding the science and not be able to make reasoned arguments for or against it. --Ben 22:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You misunderstand the articles are not an attempt to further discussion, they are the result of much discussion and compromise and they crystalize the current unresolved state of that discussion, sometimes with compromises, and sometimes with letting others have their say to the extent their peers allow it.--Silverback 04:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) These are mostly issues you should be taking up with Ed Poor, not me. I disagree with you about the sowing of confusion. I do think that creating GCC is going to sow confusion.
If it is true, as Ben said, that "climate change in and of itself is not inherently global", then we DO need two separate articles: one for climate change (not necessarily global) and the other for Global climate change.
(William M. Connolley 21:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) No we don't. See above.
Agreed that the articles are in a mess, but one big reason for this is POV pushing and its evil twin, censorship. If contributors will agree to disagree, and will agree that each article should present ALL major points of view (POV) without endorsing or condemning any POV as right or wrong, we can whip the series to shape in a few short months. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 20:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)) This is your std excuse for keeping you POV: shove it all in and let the readers sort it out. Which leads to mess.
I almost agree with this critique. Sometimes I add info at random into an article page and leave the "seamless editing" part to others; that might be regarded as lazy (at best) or even irresponsible. The part I disagree with is the idea that articles should take only ONE point of view, that of "getting to the truth of the matter" and condemning all other POVs as "incorrect". [User:Ed Poor|--user:Ed Poor]] (talk) 22:02, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/o/Talk%7EGlobal_climate_change_Archive_one_3b7b.html"