Difference between revisions of "Talk:Climate agenda"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 6: Line 6:
 
**[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=climate+change%2Cglobal+warming&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1980&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cclimate%20change%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bclimate%20change%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BClimate%20Change%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BClimate%20change%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCLIMATE%20CHANGE%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cglobal%20warming%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bglobal%20warming%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BGlobal%20Warming%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BGlobal%20warming%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BGLOBAL%20WARMING%3B%2Cc0 Here is an ngram] on climate change vs. global warming. In the early 1990s, usage for the two terms was about equal. Later "climate change" became dominant. It's obvious someone made a political decision to change the name at some point. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 03:59, 15 February 2014 (EST)
 
**[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=climate+change%2Cglobal+warming&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1980&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cclimate%20change%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bclimate%20change%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BClimate%20Change%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BClimate%20change%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCLIMATE%20CHANGE%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cglobal%20warming%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bglobal%20warming%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BGlobal%20Warming%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BGlobal%20warming%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BGLOBAL%20WARMING%3B%2Cc0 Here is an ngram] on climate change vs. global warming. In the early 1990s, usage for the two terms was about equal. Later "climate change" became dominant. It's obvious someone made a political decision to change the name at some point. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 03:59, 15 February 2014 (EST)
 
:::Please explain to me using peer reviewed references how the terms climate change and global warming ''imply that the Earth has never warmed any reason other than industrial emissions.'' Please read the IPCC report from the main source instead of filtering it through a fringe source like Anthony Watts. You’ll find he is misrepresenting the UN panel. I hope you didn’t spend too much time on your Google research. Please reread my last edit to the article and then realize my sources were from the fifties and seventies. Someone made a political decision? References? Good ones this time? It’s rather sad the opening paragraphs are allowed to remain, this article makes conservative Americans look very silly. And I for one don’t like it. --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 10:37, 15 February 2014 (EST)
 
:::Please explain to me using peer reviewed references how the terms climate change and global warming ''imply that the Earth has never warmed any reason other than industrial emissions.'' Please read the IPCC report from the main source instead of filtering it through a fringe source like Anthony Watts. You’ll find he is misrepresenting the UN panel. I hope you didn’t spend too much time on your Google research. Please reread my last edit to the article and then realize my sources were from the fifties and seventies. Someone made a political decision? References? Good ones this time? It’s rather sad the opening paragraphs are allowed to remain, this article makes conservative Americans look very silly. And I for one don’t like it. --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 10:37, 15 February 2014 (EST)
 +
::::And what is it that you don't like?  And why is Anthony Watts a "fringe source"?  Be specific. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:52, 15 February 2014 (EST)

Revision as of 15:52, February 15, 2014

The opening paragraph should be edited to reflect the actual history of climate change/global warming. References would also be nice.--NormaN 23:44, 13 February 2014 (EST)

If "climate change" is defined as the same thing as global warming, then this article should be a redirect. "Climate change" and "global warming" are both generic terms when interpreted literally. In these articles, both terms are being used as shorthand to refer to the anthropogenic global warming theory. This is of course a common media usage as well, perhaps because it lends itself to misleading terminology like "climate change denier" and "global warming denier." The climate has always been changing, and the greens didn't discover this. PeterKa 07:36, 14 February 2014 (EST)
Please reread the last sentence of my edit, Climate change was still used to refer to the other changes thought to be caused by increased CO2. In the academic and research world’s, climate change and global warming are not synonymous. Global warming is one of the consequences of anthropogenic climate change. I’d like to think an encyclopedia would be able to differentiate between the two without promoting common misconceptions.--NormaN 11:03, 14 February 2014 (EST)
So much for my request to have this article reflect reality. If this isn’t bad enough, evolution is now being discussed in the opening paragraph of a climate change article. Is it too much to ask for references? This is required by the commandments after all. I even tried to find anything that could even provide a hint of evidence backing up the first paragraph, but alas, I was unsuccessful.--NormaN 12:00, 14 February 2014 (EST)
  • "AGW" is a reasonably common way to refer to this phenomenia, and it is not nearly as misleading as either "climate change" or "global warming." Both of the later terms imply that the Earth has never warmed any reason other than industrial emissions. I suggest that the main article on this subject be located at anthropogenic global warming, Climate change and global warming can be redirects or brief terminology articles. The latest IPCC report projects dramatically less warming than earlier reports did. The climate change apocalypse has apparently been averted, and the world saved. Yet the drive-by media can't be bothered to report it. PeterKa 03:04, 15 February 2014 (EST)
    • Here is an ngram on climate change vs. global warming. In the early 1990s, usage for the two terms was about equal. Later "climate change" became dominant. It's obvious someone made a political decision to change the name at some point. PeterKa 03:59, 15 February 2014 (EST)
Please explain to me using peer reviewed references how the terms climate change and global warming imply that the Earth has never warmed any reason other than industrial emissions. Please read the IPCC report from the main source instead of filtering it through a fringe source like Anthony Watts. You’ll find he is misrepresenting the UN panel. I hope you didn’t spend too much time on your Google research. Please reread my last edit to the article and then realize my sources were from the fifties and seventies. Someone made a political decision? References? Good ones this time? It’s rather sad the opening paragraphs are allowed to remain, this article makes conservative Americans look very silly. And I for one don’t like it. --NormaN 10:37, 15 February 2014 (EST)
And what is it that you don't like? And why is Anthony Watts a "fringe source"? Be specific. Karajou 10:52, 15 February 2014 (EST)