Talk:Anthropogenic global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  1. REDIRECT Talk:Attribution of recent climate change

Change of redirect: why?[edit]

I don't see any discussion for this change [1]. It looks wrong to me William M. Connolley (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Especially in light of the AFD result, which I've just noticed... William M. Connolley (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  • That AFD discussion was from 4 years ago. The attribution redirect deals very clearly with the "anthropogenic" aspect of AGW, and you shouldn't simply revert "per talk", when there was no discussion here supporting your revert. Thus, as I agree with the new redirect, and think it's much more specific and accurate, I'm replacing it. Please don't revert it without consensus. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's how it works - specifically, there was a long standing target for this redirect - one I agree with. If people are wondering "what is anthropogenic global warming," the article that best answers that question is our article on "global warming," not our article on "what causes global warming." Thus, I have restored the four year status quo - find consensus on this talk page before moving from the status quo. Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
One (the attribution article) deals with the "anthropogenic" aspect. The other (GW) doesn't touch that side of it. This is beyond the pale, Hipocrite. Stop citing "4 years of status quo" as a reason for redirecting it to GW. I don't even think the attribution article existed back then. Now it does, and it's a MUCH better redirect for AGW. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a better redirect for the "Anthropogenic" part, sure. However, people coming to this article have typed in "anthropogenic global warming." They should be directed to our article about "the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation," which is what "anthropogenic global warming" is. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious? You really think that people who know enough to type "anthropogenic" in front of "global warming" are simply wanting to learn more about global warming?!? That seems patently absurd, as typing that qualifier makes it clear they are interested in the attribution of said phenomena. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
" Yes. They saw someone write it somewhere, and so they wikipediaed it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

AGW is just a synonym for GW. The attribution article is about something entirely different; in fact, it is about... yes, you guessed it: attribution. It isn't all that good, and definitely needs work. But it isn't the correct target for this redirect William M. Connolley (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  • No, it's categorically not. There are many people who acknowledge that global warming is occurring, but who would vigorously debate the "anthropogenic" aspect of it. Let's not pretend otherwise here. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a very fringe view you've expressed - I believe you are providing undue weight to the fringe belief that global warming is not being caused by human activity. Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Absurd. The view that the amount of influence man has over GW is debatable isn't "fringey" in the least. And I didn't even express a view on it. I simply made the comment that people who know enough to type in "anthropogenic" would seem to be looking for material on attribution not on general global warming. Please stop with the absurd accusations. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I contend that the view man is not causing global warming is fringe. You state this is "absurd." Certainly, then, you can provide peer-reviewed review articles in reputable and on-topic journals that contend that man is not causing global warming, and at least one major scientific body that doubts that man is causing global warming. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hipocrite and WMC are correct - most of the time AGW is used as a synonym for GW by people, often (but by no means always) as a means of indicating their doubts about some aspect of it. For all practical purposes, AGW is GW. Guettarda (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
WMC is right that Attribution of recent climate change needs a lot of work, but even it doesn't discuss the question manmade/not manmade. And the reason is clear - there is no realistic discussion to be had on that subject that could be based on recent published science. You can't have an article on an unrealistic scientific debate that isn't discussed in the mainstream scientific literature. UnitAnode is right to say that very few people are going to type the full name of this redirect, so very few people are going to see it. AGW is a disambiguation page. Non-event; non-discussion; there's nothing to be done here. Certainly redirect the page's few visitors to our flagship FA coverage, not to some obscure page that needs work. In the meantime, I have added Attribution of recent climate change to my watchlist to try and help get it into shape. --Nigelj (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many people who acknowledge that global warming is occurring, but who would vigorously debate the "anthropogenic" aspect of it. - ah, *now* I understand you. But this isn't the place to re-fight the global warming wars. See the current state of global warming William M. Connolley (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  • You need to desist with this type of innuendo immediately. While my views aren't relevant, here they are, so that you won't have any further need to try to "understand" me: 1) I believe that global warming is occurring; 2) I believe that human activity is a primary cause of said warming; 3) I believe that there are many good ideas under discussion as to what to do about it; 4) I believe that the articles covering the issue on Wikipedia are not very balanced, and downplay to a great extent the political and scientific debate that is still happening. If I were a betting man, I'd say that you and the other "pro-AGW" editors would agree unequivocally with #1-3, but that you write me off as incorrigible because of #4. Whatever the case, the antagonistic stance that you and several of your WikiFriends have taken on-Wiki, has greatly polarized the discussion, and very much turned off many like me, who are rather predisposed to agree with you on the underlying scientific issues. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    We don't need to know your beliefs. Please stick to discussing the articles and not the editors, including yourself. --Nigelj (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not the one you need to be talking to here, Nigel. Connolley made the snarky comment, "Ah, now I understand you" above, which was clear innuendo that I myself held beliefs which I do not hold. I categorically reject such nonsense, and I consider your little warning as not much better than Connolley's innuendo. So, next time you feel the need to lecture me, save it. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I should clarify that I am Tony Sidaway editing from a mobile telephone. Secondly, I'm not persuaded by the notion that we should create an artificial dichotomy. The scientific consensus is that global warming is almost certainly caused by human activities including industry and land use. I think the proposal to change the redirect to point to the attribution article needs better arguments than any offered so far. Tasty monster 20:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

After the problems we've seen in the last few months, this appeal to the "scientific consensus" is even less persuasive than it used to be. If there'd been more concentration on explaining the real state of knowledge and less on insisting it was all settled, then some of this might not have happened. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It is all settled. It doesn't matter if 55% of Holland is below MHWS or 60% of it is 'liable to flooding': Spring is still coming earlier, the insects are migrating polewards, and US citizens are still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than ever before. So what is your point re this article/redirect? --Nigelj (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Un-redirected again, sigh[edit]

More fiddling, no discussion. I wonder why? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The number of articles and topics in this area has expanded since this redirect was originally setup. Allowing the user a choice of where to go within this topic area would seem appropriate. Do you object to allowing the user to decide for themselves where they want to go? Do you feel the need to control what the user sees? --93.96.70.94 (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how this adresses the above - if someone comes across this page, they are looking for the article about "The increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation." Why would they want an article about "a term used to describe attempts to downplay the extent of global warming," or "the effort to scientifically ascertain mechanisms responsible for relatively recent changes observed in the Earth's climate," exactly? Please discuss before reverting again. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, given the fact that the "proposers" of this are drive-bys and banned users editing through proxies, I have closed this section. Hipocrite (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Deciding to direct this article to a particular page is surely POV. What are the objections to the dab page? SlimVirgin talk contribs 14:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
They are in the text just above that you didn't bother read. Let me reproduce it to make your task easier: AGW is just a synonym for GW... 13:55, 18 February 2010 William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason that someone would come across this page is because they were looking for "The increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation." Why else would someone come across this article? Hipocrite (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

To say that AGW is a synonym for GW ignores the argument that there can be GW without AGW, does it not? SlimVirgin talk contribs 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be reading too much into a redirect, I believe. The featured article we have on Global Warming treats the conspiracy theories with appropriate weight. Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Further, I note that you didn't answer my question - "Why else would someone come across this article?" I think that we would more easily reach agreement on how to deal with this navigation page if we first established why users would reach this navigation page. From there, we can determine where to direct them. Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
And see-also the deletion discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know which deletion discussion you mean. I'd appreciate it if you could answer my question. To say that AGW is a synonym for GW ignores the argument that there can be GW without AGW, does it not? SlimVirgin talk contribs 15:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
No. All Candycrisps are apples. Not all apples are Candycrisps. Hipocrite (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
As my analogy might fail, I'm stating that if the article were at AGW and the redirect were at GW, that would be a different beast. Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Gosh, you do need spoon-feeding, don't you? Well, open wide: see the bit at the top where it says This page was nominated for deletion on 1 August 2006. The result of the discussion was redirect to global warming.? If you look at the text at the top the word "discussion" is in blue. That is what we call a wiki-link, or hyperlink. You click on it (with you mouse, or whatever device you use). It will take you to another page, and there you do a thing we call "reading" William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Why are discussions with you so inefficient, William? If you could cut out the sarcasm and sighing and just reply to my question, that would be appreciated. The 2006 AfD didn't address it, and even if it had, it's you I'm asking. Again: to say that AGW is a synonym for GW ignores the argument that there can be GW without AGW, does it not? SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I answered this. WMC - let me try for a bit. SV isn't going to revert to the poorly formatted disambiguation page without reaching agreement with me - if and when we reach agreement, you can then reach agreement with us. SV - there are a number of problems in your unspoken assumptions. Firstly, having a redirect does not mean "synonym," it means "if you came to this article, you actually wanted this other article." Secondly, even if a redirect meant that "x is y," it is in fact, a tautology that "Anthropogenic Global Warming is Global Warming," finally, please answer my question, already: ""Why else would someone come across this article?" I think that we would more easily reach agreement on how to deal with this navigation page if we first established why users would reach this navigation page. From there, we can determine where to direct them."
However, because you've asked over and over - "No." Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My question is for William. He wrote above: "AGW is just a synonym for GW". My question for him is: does that not overlook the argument that there can be GW without AGW? SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not a user-talk page. I've answered your question. "No." Now you answer mine. Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Simple answer - anthropogenic global warming is covered at global warming. We're redirecting this article there, not that article here. Simple enough. Guettarda (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I take it that means you're acknowledging AGW is not a synonyn for GW. Can you point to which section of Global warming covers the AGW arguments? SlimVirgin talk contribs 18:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Wrong talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
But, I'll humor you. Global_warming#Views_on_global_warming, subsection "Other views" - "There are, however, some scientists and non-scientists who question aspects of climate change science. For example, meteorologist Prof. Richard Lindzen doubts whether humans are responsible for recently observed warming..." Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hip, that's the non-AGW part of the page. Which is, of course, still a subset of the AGW argument. Guettarda (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I was answering the question that I assumed SV was asking - to wit "Where does the article on Global Warming deal with the fringe crackpots and fraudsters that deny global warming is in substantial part caused by man's activities." Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Nope, not "acknowledging" anything of the sort. As to your second question - it starts with Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation... and continues pretty much to the bottom of the page. Guettarda (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) In this case the discussion was inefficient because you failed to do even minimal due diligence and try to find the answer to "what deletion discussion" yourself, which you could have trivially done, avoiding a waste of both my time and yours. After e/c, the answer is that this discussion is inefficient because of blind stubborness on your part: you're wrong, and yet incapable of backing off. As for the A in AGW: read global warming: Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. If you want it to mean something else, you may be looking for climate change. Perhaps the question should be: what exactly are you hoping to achieve here? You're certainly going to have to actually understand the subject rather better than you are demonstrating if you want to make anything better William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)