Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon film.svg

This Global warming related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
Editorial notes
  • Potential for a much higher rating.
  • Very bullet-point based at the moment.

Silver[edit]

As katz & Nebby forgot to put it here. Nom for silver. Objections? Poll closes in 3 minutes Тycommunications wire 02:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that irks me is the sheer number of bullet points involved as opposed to straight writing. ADK...I'll reiterate your eel! 15:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

From your friendly neighborhood Grammar Nazi[edit]

A group is composed of scientists, while scientists may comprise the group :) — Unsigned, by: 99.146.97.23 / talk / contribs

Don't know what you're talking about. Blush.gif Nothing to see here. Blush.gif Move along. Blush.gif ADK...I'll orate your pumpkin! 12:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Emotional outbursts[edit]

I don't think we get our point across to anyone who isn't already squarely in the camp of accepting the science that this is real and happening by being purposely dericive in our statements or when we sound like we are better/more intelligent than someone else. It is also anethema to being rational in the approach to topics. Considering this is a "rational" wiki page I think we would better serve by writing more professionally and in ways that won't alienate anyone not already completely accepting of global warming. Finally it is odd to attack someone who approaches global warming almost religiously with emotions but then approach that emotionally ourselves. Several times in the article the positions of those who are clearly in denial often contradict themselves with their own statements on their "evidence". So I don't think we should fall prey to the same trap as they have fallen into and simply do our best to convey the science as concisely, respectfully, and free from emotions as we possibly can. Otherwise the same argument could be used by deniers to say we are simply caught up in our emotions that we aren't thinking rationally. Well I hope this gets through to the authors and that an effort is made to remove all of the snide and unnecessary comments peppered throughout these articles. It would make my job that much easier of showing someone who isn't married to their denial a web page that is dedicated solely to the science and convincing to a reasonable person. ~cs41y — Unsigned, by: 50.182.204.242 / talk / contribs 20:19, 1 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Your concern is appreciated. I agree that RationalWiki articles should be written with a structure and tone that would serve to persuade those who may be persuaded. It would be more helpful if you pointed out the specific "snide and unnecessary comments peppered throughout" and suggested better wording. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
First, let's get one thing straight - here at RW, we proudly flaunt our offical SPOV. You (a BoN with no other contributions, who failed to sign his own post no less) make these suggestions by terming the existing text as "our" point, yet I get the impression that you don't know an awful lot about RW at this specific moment in time. However - and I haven't read though this article lately to look for the alleged segments you were referring to - sometimes, some articles do go past the point of "reasonable snark" and into the arena of pure vitriol. Good snark is obvious snark, meaning: no matter where you stand on the given issue, when you read it you can't help but laugh (or get red as a tomato if the joke was quite justly at your silly expense) because it IS fucking funny. Kinda like a comedy roast with all-rationalist roasters - it gets the point across, and it quite sublimely makes the butt of the "joke" look like exactly that. So, if any areas of the text make it read like we're just salivatingly raging when we're actually meant to be snarking with calm euphoria, those need to change. Never to "neutral" - but to snarky as all hell. Thank you, and all the best. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans[edit]

Hi - regarding the statement on this point and the reference to a USGS page - I don't see where in the USGS page this claim is invalidated. Can someone provide more evidence of the incorrectness of the Volcano claim?— Unsigned, by: 71.47.147.86 / talk / contribs

Here you go.
Or, if you prefer things in interactive form (highlight at around 2:33-3:13);
And remember... It's OK to be smart. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Solar activity and global warming[edit]

Could the absence of temperature changes referred to here be used as another counter-argument? Anna Livia (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Not especially. They only make the solar variation argument once, and it's not particularly based on solar storms, so much as flagrant lying. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)