Template talk:Climate change

Link to article on the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

User:William M. Connolley has reverted the addition of a link to the article on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident with the comment "no, as before, please stop being disruptive". I'm not sure why he's describing this as disruptive - perhaps because he's annoyed because he'd reverted someone else who'd added the link earlier. (I need to add a mea culpa here - it seemed like an obvious addition, so I hadn't checked the article history.) I'd also added the same link to the Index of climate change articles page. On that one, he reverted with the comment "NOTNEWS".

In that case, it seems clear to me that WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply, because it's nothing more than an index to Wikipedia articles that deal with climate change. This template represents a similar case - it's not an article itself, but rather a table of contents or index to global warming related articles on Wikipedia. We can talk about whether or not there should be an article on the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, but as it stands, Wikipedia does have such an article. Given that the article exists, it seems pretty clear that it should be indexed. If we don't believe it's an appropriate topic for Wikipedia, then the appropriate recourse would seem to be to nominate it for deletion, instead of deleting any links to it from other articles.

I apologize to Connolly for not checking the history before making that edit, but I honestly did not expect it to be controversial. I do, however, think that it's appropriate to include all of the related articles in the web of links we're building. If an article simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia, that's a different issue, and should be addressed directly. EastTN (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You can waste your time AFD'ing it if you like; I'm not going to bother. But, as the section above says, NOTNEWS applies. As well as not-important-enough as well. If you want to talk about the index stuff, do it over there (and you'll get NOTNEWS, again). Repeatedly doing the same doomed-to-failure mistake is disruptive William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I disagree with you, but I'm not trying to pick a fight - and I haven't made the same edit again. My sense is that this template really should be viewed as an structured table of contents for Wikipedia articles related to the subject. I hear what you're trying to say about Wikipedia not being a newspaper, but do you really think this incident won't be part of the debate going forward? I can't see skeptics letting go of it. EastTN (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Sorry. There has been far too much trash around this issue. Going forward, I expect this incident to fade away as uninteresting, although I expect the skeptics will keep trying to revive it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that bigger historical complaints like hockey stick controversy aren't in the template, I think it is probably overreaching to include this new event here right now. In general it appears that the template is mostly avoiding news type articles in favor of general information pieces. Dragons flight (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I guess I'd vote for including the hockey stick controversy in the "Opinion and controversy" section of the template. I don't see any benefit in making it difficult for readers to find these articles, and the larger template is well enough structured that including them doesn't clutter up the page for readers who aren't interested. EastTN (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, this is a high-level template; it's not suitable for including individual controversies. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand the reasons for excluding a link to the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident(or Climategate).

• • It is stated that it is a high-level template, therefore it's not suitable for including individual controversies.
  • It is stated that bigger historical complaints like hockey stick controversy aren't in the template, I think it is probably overreaching to include this new event here right now.

I do not follow your logic...

• • Being a high-level template, including this link would make it easier for a number of viewers to find the article.
  • If the hockey stick controversy wasn't included before, there's no reason why it can't be included now. Could someone please explain the harm in adding a group to the template under the controversy section that included links to the hockey stick controversy, Solar variation theory, climategate, Attribution of recent climate change...and perhaps some other links.

I always thought the purpose of a navigational template was to include links related to the subject...so why is there a lack of links for that section? I'd also like to point out that this is wikipedia, and that templates, and articles can be edited...so what the harm in adding the link until the controversy subsides?Smallman12q (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree and I added both cases. Templates like thios is for navigational help, and both these cases is highly relevant. Nsaa (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Attribution of recent climate change should be added and I have. CG shouldn't be, for obvious reasons: it is a redirect, and NOTNEWS applies, apart from anything else William M. Connolley (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (Climategate for short) is highly relevant. Also, it doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS because this is not "routine news coverage", but rather a historical event. What else applies?Smallman12q (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident AKA Climategate, the hockey stick controversy and the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming should all be added.--Duchamps_comb MFA 07:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a rather odd attempt by people interested in very fringe parts of the subject to get more prominence for it. It doesn't seem to qualify on any grounds yet for inclusion in the template. --BozMo talk 14:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The articles linked in the template are top-level articles within each category. (when i say top level - i mean the top in a hierachy of "less specialized"(top) => "specialized"(bottom). The CRU article is a sub-article of Hockeystick, which again is a sub-article of Controversy and Temperature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For the first Global warming controversy is the main article for the Opinion and controversy section. Under this section we should list every article on this subject, not just two of them. If we after a wile will get 10+ articles we can reconsider what should be included. Added the two last so it's not so empty and incomplete:

• Scientific opinion on climate change
• Scientists opposing the mainstream assessment

* Controversy and Temperature

• Hockey stick controversy
• Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Nsaa (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again my edit was removed without discussing it. This is so bad that I just miss it (I refrain from reinsert it even if it's removed by no reason at all). As Kim D. Petersen point out above Controversy and Temperature should be included as well since it is another article about controversies which sourorunds this topic. Hopefully it is know acceptable to add it (the list above) as a compromise? When it's written. In the mean time I urge Kim D. Petersen to restore what he deliberatly removed without consensus. Nsaa (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You aren't listening to what people are saying. This is a high-level template linking to the top-level articles on each major topic. The articles you list are subarticles of Global warming controversy. That top-level article is already listed. It is not appropriate to list subarticles on a template meant for listing top-level articles. I really can't put it any more simply than that. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That point has been made several times, but I'd suggest it's worth discussing. In particular:

1. The template is well enough structured that adding more links to a particular subcategory of the template is not going to unduly clutter up the page, or even the broader template, for readers who aren't interested;
2. Most of the other subcategories of the template already have far more links - specifically, the "causes," "potential effects and issues," "mitigation," and "proposed adaptations" sections (in fact, the only other section that has only three links is the "politics" section - given the completeness of the links in the other sections, is there a chance that we're unintentionally limiting the links in these two sections on the basis of an unconscious Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT reaction?); and
3. There's no real benefit to the encyclopedia in making it more difficult than necessary for readers to find these articles.

Bottom line, I don't see any evidence of the "top-level" rule in the other subsections of the template, and given the structure of the template with collapsing subtopics and the effective way in which many more links have been incorporated into the other subsections, there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that adding additional links to the "Opinion and controversy" and "Politics" subsections would somehow make the template cluttered, confusing or unwieldy. I've heard the "high-level template linking" argument, but the more carefully I think about it, the less persuasive I find it. EastTN (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So how would it hurt to add in links to the controversial items into the navigational template?Smallman12q (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. This links today Oil_phase-out_in_Sweden how in is it possible that this be more relevant than the hockey stick controversy and the Climategate? I adds it. Nsaa (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This really shouldn't be difficult to understand. This is a top-level template, listing top-level articles in the topic area. Global warming controversy is the top-level article for the various GW controversies. Hockey stick controversy and Climatic Research Unit hacking incident are low-level articles dealing with specific issues within the GW controversy topic, of which they are subtopics. As low-level articles, they don't belong in a top-level template. That's basic taxonomy. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming Controversies Disambiguation

I've read the talk here and appreciate folks want to keep this Template on high level controversies and suppress the low level controversy articles. A disambiguation article could serve these annoying little controversies right. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

why? We have this Oil_phase-out_in_Sweden ... Much more high level than an article question the some of the most used graphs in the AGW argument? Yeahhh. Nsaa (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Template parameters

I was unsure if I could change this template without being reverted, so I seek approval here first. I would like to properly utilize the "selected" parameter and set it to {{{1|}}}; this would allow for the usage of the "abbrn" parameter in the articles. Of course the transclusion on each article would need to be updated with the proper abbreviation (by that I mean change {{Global warming}} to {{Global warming|Causes}} or whatever the appropriate abbr is for that particular article). I don't think it's even a hundred articles included in this template, so I could update those articles in a couple of hours or so. I do not wish to create an account, so if someone who is template literate and has an account wants to do this, be my guest. --207.206.136.37 (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

Just delete the whole opinion and controversy section of the template. Wikipedia is not the place for this type of stuff. Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Woah... why is Wikipedia not the place for "this type of stuff"? Dissent and scrutiny, however eccentric, is an essential part of the scientific process, particularly on important and complex issues. Why would Wikipedia suppress it? Since when did Wikipedia become the godlike arbitrator of final truth? --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm and rhetorical questions get you no-where.Brian Everlasting (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So it seems. But what rhetorical questions? Why don't you just answer the questions? --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view. Please read WP:NPOV and reconsider your request Brian.Smallman12q (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There are like a hundred climate change related articles out there in WP. Why do you think that opinion on climate change is more important than other articles about the topic? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Being that this is a navigational template, I believe that high traffic articles should be included. It also seems that while the other subsections, except for temperatures and opinion/controversy, there is more than one row of linked articles.Smallman12q (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is balantant removal of unpleasant stuff by the AGW believers. That's why. They links to Oil_phase-out_in_Sweden ( a single government report ...). It's high level you know... Nsaa (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should polish up your assumptions of good faith and civil conduct? This discussion was in December, and no matter what "side" one is on, it is a simple fact that in December no one knew anything about the relative importance or impact of the CRU thing (which we btw. imho still don't). I'm a bit surprised about the Oil phaseout link as well - i don't think it should be here either. But i do see at least one rationale for it, and that is if we do not have any other articles on oil phaseout (but it is still tentative). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(←) I believe in mainstream science and yet I like to read Wikipedia's articles about the various constructed controversies outside of mainstream science (e.g., Creationism, Flat Earth, Climate change denial, etc.). These articles are valuable for getting useful background whenever I talk to someone about climate change who gets their information from Fox News or the Heartland Institute etc. I live in Ohio so I am surrounded not by people who know climate science but by people who know what they read in their right-wing chain e-mails. Thus I am interested in being able to find the scientific responses to the non-science floating around in popular culture. Since Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view, the scientific position (or positions, when appreciable numbers of qualified scientists actually differ) will (or should) be present in every article that specifically documents a controversy relating to science. However, I see the point about having a "high" level template. The total number of articles relating to climate change (let alone mitigation, which takes in the whole energy industry, most of agriculture, urban design, etc.) is far too large to cram into a single navigation template. However, it would be nice to have lower-level navigation templates to put into lower-level topic articles. When someone stumbles across an article about a particular controversy, they could benefit from links to related controversies. --Teratornis (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed adaptation strategies

Of the links in this section, only the sustainable development one mentions climate change. I don't think it's a good idea to give link and then leave readers disappointed over find nothing in the linked article to read on the template's topic. Narayanese (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed readers could become editors and edit the articles about proposed adaptation strategies to mention at some point that that is what they are. When an adaptation strategy is being pursued for other reasons (e.g., Energy security, reduction in local pollution, relief of traffic congestion, etc.) it is still an adaptation strategy, even if the other reasons get most or all of the emphasis in the current revision of the article. --Teratornis (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why was Land use and forestry removed?

Why was Land use and forestry removed? 141.218.36.152 (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)