Talk:Air temperature and carbon dioxide

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I really don't want to be too nit-picky, and I certainly don't want to cause offense to the author of this article, but it seems a little too specific for it's own page, especially considering how short it is. I realize more could probably be added in the future, but really how much can be said about this particular subject? I would suggest it be included in an existing page, possible the Global warming page? -DrSandstone 14:19, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

This is about the correlation between the two, which Al Gore used to say indicated causation. Indeed, he used it to support the AGW hypothesis. It certainly deserves a page of its own and should not be hidden within a long, contentious article.
Wikipedia glosses over the fact that CO2 is driven by air temp - and not the other way around - in its mania to support the secular religion of global warming and the "salvation" of the Kyoto Protocol.
Please help my be writing everything you know about the correlation between temperature and CO2, particularly if it sheds any light on one causing changes in the other. --Ed Poor Talk 14:24, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
I understand your not wanting it to be buried in a larger article, but nothing even links here at this time. What are the odds someone's going to search for the title of this page? I think you're more likely to have this information read if it's included in a more commonly searched page. But that's the last I'm going to say about it. -DrSandstone 18:01, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree with DrSandstone. Why not merge this minutia with AGW hypothesis, or Anthropogenic global warming, or Runaway greenhouse effect or Greenhouse effect, or Greenhouse gas, or Science of global warming... And I'm sure there are more. Many more, I fear! There seems to be a sudden proliferation of these pages, all looking more like soapboxes than encyclopedia articles. Conservapedia is either an encyclopedia that aims to tell the truth in a trustworthy manner, or it is a medium for pushing a particular point of view on various political, social and scientific issues. Either way, I cannot see how this plethora of overlapping articles helps. What are you trying to achieve? Humblpi 14:30, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess I'm not exactly of the same mind as Hmblpi; it just seems to me that merging all related pages into one comprehensive article on, as I suggested earlier as an example, Global warming, would be more useful than disparate, short articles related to essentially the same concept. My concern is that without the information centralized, it could end up easily getting lost or overlooked. Of course, that's just my opinion, and you're free to do what you like. -DrSandstone 14:37, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Just to point out that whilst it's true that air temperature can push up CO2 levels (most likely cause is the warming of the oceans, as CO2 (and all gases) become less soluble in warmer liquids). That doesn't actually say anything whatsoever about whether or not CO2 can also push up air temperature. So we can say that CO2 in the past has always increased after temperature, we still cannot say that it cannot increase temperatures, it's even possible that once the CO2 level increases due to natural causes (the 100,000 year cycle may be instigated by the orbit of the sun), it may then trigger a positive feedback system driving up temperatures after.Raggs 17:52, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Merge or summary

I have no objection to adding a summary of this article to any of the pages humbly suggested above. Just don't blank the page with a redirect, as they do over at Wikipedia when they want to censor any information that contradicts liberal ideology. --Ed Poor Talk 11:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)