Difference between revisions of "Talk:Climate agenda"

Revision as of 18:29, March 7, 2019

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)

Let’s see. The opening paragraph starts with an unreferenced, completely false assertion and mentions evolution even though this is a climate change article. And the article continues along the same lines for several more sentences. I noticed Schlafly is making some of the most flagrant violations of the Conservapedia commandments yet nothing is being done to correct this abuse. Anthony Watts is a meteorologist without any formal education in climate science yet he is used as an authoritative source on climate change by Conservapedia. I call him a fringe source because his conclusions concerning climate change put him within the fringe of academics or pseudo-academics who agree with the 1% of legitimate climate researchers who deny anthropogenic climate change. --NormaN 23:41, 15 February 2014 (EST)

Well, let's see this one. First, climate change or global warming - the "anthropogenic" kind - is a proven fraud, and I could not care less that 99% of "legitimate" climate researchers think the world is coming to an end because someone in New Jersey is running all over town in an SUV; consensus cannot alter facts. And the fact that it is a fraud is a combination of emails among these "scientists" stating their intentions to deliberately alter the data so they can push a political agenda upon the world in general and the United States in particular; Anthony Watts' posting of images which show that the "scientists" primary source of temperature-taking were machines deliberately placed near sources of man-made heat which skewed the data; and clowns like Al Gore who stated that the North Pole would be ice free right now, when it's not.

Second, you need to get something straight here, Norman. We're not going to post a liberal agenda on this website. We're not going to change our position on global warming or anything else that the church of liberalism loves; to do so we would have to be complicit in a lie, and we're not going to tolerate it. Karajou 00:48, 16 February 2014 (EST)

Okay. Facts don’t matter to you, got it. What emails are you talking about? SUVs? New Jersey? The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project demonstrated Watts didn’t know what he was talking about when he complained about the placement of climate stations. He promised to accept the conclusions of BEST but when his opinions were completely demolished he reneged. This is Conservapedia, I understand the liberal agenda won’t be posted here, give me some credit, I’m not stupid. That being said, I’d like to think conservatives, like yourself, could accept scientific reality. By the way, are you planning on doing anything about the atrocious opening sentences of this article? Don’t you think everyone should follow the Conservapedia commandments?--NormaN 01:23, 16 February 2014 (EST)

Facts do matter to me. And I'm not going to do anything about the article's opening sentences, and neither am I going to tolerate a liberal troll that insists on pushing a lie on this website while at the same time refusing to listen. Have a nice day. Karajou 01:35, 16 February 2014 (EST)

The article I linked to is actually by Christopher Monckton rather than by Watts, although I don't expect that to make any difference to Norman. Watts is only a meteorologist? Mann is a physicist, Schneider is a mechanical engineer, Pachauri is a railway economist, Gore is a lawyer, etc. etc. You don't need qualifications to get into the climate change racket. PeterKa 01:48, 16 February 2014 (EST)

Global warming is not a hoax

Why does the first sentence reference to global warming as a hoax? Global warming is not a hoax, it is a reality, as is evident from the fact that in my country (the United Kingdom) in late February this year (2019), weather forecasters reported on the warmest winter days on record. Carltonio (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2019 (EST)

They are two separate issues: (1) the science of global warming, and (2) the politicization of global warming. If Global warming is hijacked by communists to advocate single payer, racial reparations, guaranteed income, veganism, economic justice and transgenderism, it's a hoax. And it will remain a hoax. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:26, 6 March 2019 (EST)

(edit conflict) It is a hoax when leftists claim that global warming is caused by humans and that it is the most serious issue faced by humans. The climate does change, as seen from the Roman Warm Period to the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age to the present, but Al Gore's predictions remain false and socialist economic and social policies are not needed to "solve" anything. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Well put.

Many records for cold temperatures were broken this winter. Global warming as a crisis, and a man-made one, is a hoax, an attempt by liberals to control energy production and thereby the economy.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Further evidence for global warming is that rain has been melting ice sheets in Greenland.Carltonio (talk)