Talk:Global warming

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)

Point of no return?[edit]

"there's broad agreement that anything above 2°C will mean we are beyond recovery. The International Energy Agency suggests that the window to prevent this from occurring will close by 2020, a view shared by the OECD."

Does this mean we're already FUBAR? Or has this prediction been revised since? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 12:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Climate change beneficial[edit]

Robert Zubrin, for instance, claims that climate change is beneficial, that it will improve crop yields. At the page top, should D) be split into two items "isn't important" and E) "is beneficial"? The current contents of D) seem to be conflated and, I would think, should be separate bullet points. Also, since A), B), & C) use "is not", change D) to "is not" from "isn't"? JimW (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

methane increase[edit]

"CO2 emissions have been stabilizing but methane emissions have risen dramatically during the past ten years for unknown reasons."

One maior reason has likely been identified, there's still disagreement though. — Unsigned, by: 2605:E000:1221:8121:AC42:8A22:4E1B:5C34 / talk 00:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

History and the Industrial Revolution[edit]

That the earth is currently warming is undeniable. However, rebutting the opposite idea needs to be done completely correctly, and talk of this being down to the industrial revolution puts a hole in the argument. Unfortunately, what we know isn't as much as we think we do and as soon as you argue from speculation the opposition will say "Aha - but you don't know that", and they will be correct.

What we do know is that in places where records have been made, temperatures have been slowly rising. However, there were no thermometers until 300 years ago, and accurate records outside Europe weren't made until considerably later. We also have historical records pointing to much colder winters, evidenced by rivers freezing over. Mostly in Europe. For example, the Thames in London froze fairly regularly up until the end of the 18th Century and that takes some doing. We assume that what happened in Europe happened across the globe as there's nothing to suggest it didn't. We also have ancient maps, particularity Roman ones, showing detailed coastline. The Romans were pretty good surveyors and if they say the sea level was a lot higher as little as 2000 years ago they're probably right. The planet has cooled down and is now warming up again.

However, the idea that the industrial revolution caused this to start simply doesn't fit with the dates. Saying the rise in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is responsible, and that adding to them is just plain stupid in the circumstances, fits the facts. Other factors are more debatable, and used by the pro-fossil lobby to continue the debate. Neither does the "everyone agrees" gambit. Everyone agreed the sun orbited the earth. — Unsigned, by: Fjl london / talk / contribs

The article does, in fact address, some of these issues already. We have proxies for thermometers in things like tree rings and ice cores. I couldn't find anything authoritative on Roman sea levels being higher, but this New Scientist article has Roman level 1.3 meters below today's levels. If you can point out where exactly you think the article in wrong and where that would be good.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


I endorse an upgrade. Thoughts? Coral (pester) 19:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Bongolian (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Ditto. Christopher (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, I asked earlier. Such a hot-button issue like this, it was surprising to me to see a relatively good article as just bronze. It's very, very short of gold, however, as there's a lot of things that needs to be touched on for climate change denialism. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
2 years ago, just noticed. Heh, sorry I didn't ping you in, but 4 votes in 2-ish years, no one objected so :P. You can have the honors. Coral (pester) 20:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure. I'd form a list about the major things this article is missing. I did recall there's a lot to uncover regarding denialism. But I also think the article should get an update to relevant events and should touch upon the eco-fascists that don't deny the issues but their solutions involve killing out the poor or otherwise "undesirable races". Remember, some of the terrorist attacks a few years ago were fueled by this. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, as more evidence that it's happening come out, denialists have to change their tactics. Plutocow (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I think we should take the Youtube videos out and just link them as a regular reference but beyond that I think silver is a good idea. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


DeforestationWikipedia is not mentioned once in our article. This seems odd given it is a major contributor to global warming. Also odd that we mention how we could harness the benefits of reforestation while neglecting that it's currently trending significantly in the opposite direction. Something to do. Kauri0.o (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)