Talk:Climate change/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 14 May 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

"positive effects"

"Global average temperatures were higher during the Jurassic period than they are today. This does not, unfortunately, mean that global warming will bring back the extinct dinosaurs. The currently living ones such as chickens, on the other hand, may evolve to fill the new niches. So if you want a world where your puny children are mere morsels for the almighty Cockasaurus Rex, trade in that SUV for a Hummer."

This isn't really a valid point; it is logically nonsensical (there's no source even backing up deniers saying this), and even if it is, it's just a recycle of the denialist talking point "CO2 is plant food" or whatever. Maybe the sentences are played for a joke, but it's not really good enough for this page IMO. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Solutions

Also noticed "Living with it". It's a denialist tactic to say "we can just adapt to it" (which is not discussed in this article; unless I'm missing something, but I've scrolled through this page a few times, didn't see it). However the section goes into just... change of planting corn in Illinois. Severe lack of breadth aside, I know that's going to happen sooner or later, but this "solution" if you can even call that one, is still going to leave tons of people dead and otherwise severe disruption in various parts of the globe that many countries will be burdened to deal with. You think this gap in our coverage should be in a gold article? I have my doubts. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The bias of the article:

I'm not sure who is reviewing these articles for accuracy, but there is severe bias present in this one. This is problematic due to the controversial nature of the topic. All viewpoints supported by science and facts should be included. It's actually very sad. I hope that the moderators of this wiki will come back to earth and stop allowing the spread of misinformation, even going so far as to label it "gold". Anyway, that's my two cents. Yes, I know you didn't ask, but it needed to be said. ^{— Unsigned, by: 185.197.193.36 / talk}

Vague criticisms such as this are unhelpful. If you have specific complaints about misinformation, we would like to hear them. Bongolian (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Is that not the point of the "talk" page? Sorry you think it's unhelpful, but your reply was rather unhelpful too. Thanks anyway. ^{— Unsigned, by: 185.197.193.36 / talk / contribs}

What Bongolian means, dear Bon is that you do not indicate which specific viewpoint supported by science and fact you believe is not included. Scream!! (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

What Bongolian and Scream!! are saying. If you believe the article to be biased against science and facts then please point out those inaccuracies so we can improve the article. As of now the article seems fine (to me) and it isn't obvious (to me) what you are talking about. ULTRACOMFY (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"Climate change" vs "global warming"

We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with 'global warming and ending with environmentalism, It's time for us to start talking about 'climate change' instead of global warming and 'conservation ' instead of preservation. 1) "Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

Source: Republican Political Consultant Frank Luntz, 2003 https://web.archive.org/web/20150511165611/http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001330.php

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

Hmmph (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

My vote goes to "climate catastrophe".--Max Sinister (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)