Jump to content

Talk:2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect

[edit]

I suggest redirecting this to United Nations Climate Change Conference#2010 - COP 16/MOP 6, Mexico until there is enough information to support a separate stub Polargeo (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to have a stub on this subject as it is easier to add new information to an existing article. And I believe it is quite sure that it will be expanded. Prillen (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'm deleting the link to climate change mitigation, because that's only part of what will be discussed in Cancún. I don't think it will be insightful to add links to all other issues such as adaptation, finance, technology, capacity building and so on. Moreover, the page climate change adaptation refers mainly to adaptation practice and not adaptation policy, and there is no page on climate finance. I considered adding instead a link to climate policy, but that one links to economics of global warming, which is odd, to say the least. rjtklein 15:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjtklein (talk • contribs)

What of Category:Climate change policy or Category:Economics and climate change? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC) And Economics of climate change mitigation? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC) There is potentially related Category:Carbon finance, generally related Category:Environmental economics, and potentially related Category:Climate change law and Category:Climate change treaties with more general Category:Environment treaties? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Effect

[edit]

This is a legitimate and properly sourced reference to the the Gore Effect (as described in that article) and as it has been applied to the circumstances seen at COP16, namely record breaking cold during the convention. There is nothing questionable about this reference and it is clearly verifiable from the cited references. --187.111.237.208 (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was not whether the Winnipeg Free Press, the wattsupwiththat blog et al actually ran this non-story, but whether the fact that they did had any actual relevance to an encyclopedic report on a UN conference. Most people worldwide would feel it did not. --Nigelj (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a legitimate reference to a notable topic. Cross referencing notable topics is a proper encyclopedic construct which aids readers to explore related information. We do it everywhere on the project for all types of articles. --187.111.237.208 (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Gore effect" paragraph should remain deleted. IMO it just not notable enough as per WP:NOTE. It also fails WP:WEIGHT as its just not a significant view point. It also fails WP:VALID too. Its not a viewpoint that an encyclopedia is required to give "equal validity" to. I am happy to hear other viewpoints and opinions. Mrfebruary (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE does not apply in this case. To quote directly from the text itself, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list."
Regarding WP:WEIGHT, I respectfully disagree. As a viewpoint the Gore Effect is not only notable ... it is notable enough to pass WP:NOTE and have its own article.
Regarding WP:VALID, it does not apply in this case because no claims of scientific validity of the effect have been made. The Gore Effect is notable not for its scientific accuracy but for it's use in political satire and this reference is a perfectly apt and valid example thereof. For these reasons I shall once again restore the content which is completely within our policies and guidelines. --187.111.237.208 (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with anon. Sufficiently notable for inclusion. Sufficiently reported on to be included for weight. It was quite interesting that the conference should be visited by record cold per the Gore Effect. No need to whitewash this information. Arzel (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think there are good reasons for this section. I recommend it be deleted. There are individual articles for most of the 16 meetings of the Conferences of the Parties to the UNFCCC. There are articles on the UNFCCC, and two on the Kyoto Protocol. None have sections on political satirizing of the meetings. There is good reason for that. Its just not that relevant or notable and does not add to encyclopedic content for articles about international climate change negotiations. Its seems to me to be too close WP:SOAPBOXing. Mrfebruary (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Former VP Gore wasn't even there. The current entry for the political joke "Gore Effect" now has some text about something like "particular emphasis to events Gore attends." Oh, so Gore doesn't even really have to be there, and satirical editors can hyperlink "Gore Effect" from any climate change gathering, document, or event at all? This stuff is fringe, see WP:UNDUE. DanielM (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. But this isn't random. There really are people who believe that if they can get enough media coverage of every cold day that occurs, anywhere in the world (especially if there is a climate change event nearby), they can somehow disprove the whole of climate science. Or at least throw up enough doubt that some politicians, or voters, will continue to fail to act for a few more years. We should not give them coverage in these articles - there is a whole article devoted to this effort and that is enough for a fringe phenomenon. --Nigelj (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of weight was raised and refuted above by the anon. Raising it again seems to be heading into WP:IDONTLIKETHAT but here is a more detailed argument to support inclusion. (1) The text currently includes 6 independent references directly linking COP16 to the Gore Effect. This is far more than is required to establish notability/weight within this topic for a single simple mention. (2) The cold spell at COP16 was not just some sort of cold days, they were 100 year record lows. (3) Per WP:NOTE one litmus test for inclusion provided by Jimmy Wales is "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". The existing references include not one but two such prominent adherents. Roy Spencer (scientist) and Anthony Watts (blogger). Both are notable enough to have their own articles. Spencer is a relatively prominent (i.e. recognizable) climate scientist. Watts' blog, Watts Up With That?, has about an order of magnitude larger reach within the global internet community than RealClimate which is run by a group of prominent climate scientists according to Alexa stats which is sufficient to establish his prominence in this context. (4) Again, no claims of scientific validity are being made. Notability/weight are based upon independent media references for usage as a piece of political satire. This is completely verifiable from the sources provided and inclusion is within wikipedia policy.
"Oh, so Gore doesn't even really have to be there, and satirical editors can hyperlink "Gore Effect" from any climate change gathering, document, or event at all?" No, just the ones that receive sufficient media coverage to be notable. This example meets that bar. The policy based test is not what we wiki-editors "want to do" but rather what the media sources actually did as was demonstrated this case. --Mywikiaccount987 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see some references but I don't see the one that says what you said above: "The cold spell at COP16 was not just some sort of cold days, they were 100 year record lows." Can you link us to that here, please? Not just a single day selectively from two weeks of COP 16, but this spell you claimed, and preferably from a meteorologist-type source? DanielM (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a direct quote from an article. This is a talk page. I was making an argument about the significance of this example. I could and should have been more precise in my language since not all of the record lows were 100 year record lows.
The claim of a 100 year record low comes from the very first sentence of the very first reference and I quote: "The irony: As negotiators from nearly 200 countries met in Cancun to strategize ways to keep the planet from getting hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F."
It is notable that Cancun set record lows for 7 consecutive days (December 5 through 11, 2010) of which 6 were during the conference. You can verify this here (select each date and check the year the record was set). This is also described here. --Mywikiaccount987 (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable in what sense? As proof of God's mysterious ways? As publicity for Wattsupwiththat blog? As influencing the political discussions? --Nigelj (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable in the sense that setting a 100 year record low is a rare event. Notable in the sense that setting record lows for 7 straight days is a rare event. My point is simply that this was not just a set of "sort of cold days", they were record setting. From a political satire perspective the confluence of these record low temperatures with this particular conference provides an unusually good opportunity (i.e. a notable opportunity) to invoke the Gore Effect in a humorous way as has been done by multiple sources. --Mywikiaccount987 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be polite, 987, and give you a chance to answer one editor at a time, so I'll hold off on my criticism of your last rephrasing, except to note that the "100 year lows" claim is hyperlinked to a Jon DuHamel article that refers only to a single day (Dec. 7)(and doesn't refer to "Gore Effect"), and I don't know if DuHamel is a reliable source for weather data either. And <sigh> I will note respectfully that your pointing us to the weather database encourages WP:NOR violation. DanielM (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your forbearance but focusing on the phrase "100 year lows" at this point is headed nowhere. That is not the phrase used in the text of the article and it was merely a poorly worded comment on a talk page. I have acknowledged as much and clarified my meaning above: one day was a 100 year record low and the cold spell was of sufficient duration so as to set records for 7 consecutive days. You had asked for a meteorological site to confirm that the cold spell was longer than one day and I provided one as requested. In addition I provided a reference that discussed the fact that there was a string of record setting days which should dispel any concerns over WP:NOR.
Please note that I am not suggesting that we change the current phrasing of the main article to include the phrase "100 year lows". I only raised that in the context of a discussion of the notability of this example invocation of the Gore Effect (as opposed to other such examples). I am happy with the existing text (found here) which is clearly supported by the supplied references and completely within policy. You have provided no convincing policy based rationale for removing the material. Please provide one or kindly restore the material. WP:IDONTLIKETHAT is not a valid rationale for removing properly sourced material. --Mywikiaccount987 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the 100-year-low claim is headed nowhere, why did you use it again in response to my questions in the same edit that you told Daniel to forget it? The sources do not seem very notable on the world stage - the Tucson Citizen, the Winnipeg Free Press and some blogs. You seem very familiar with Wikipedia essays, guidelines and policies on this your second day of editing, and this the only paragraph you have ever worked on. Did you have a previous user name that you forgot to divulge yet? --Nigelj (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the rationale and actions of Nigelj and DanielM. The 'political satire' of the 'Gore Effect' is just not encyclopedic or notable and the page should remain without it. Mrfebruary (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book about the COP 16 and COP 15 summits

[edit]

The book How Effective Negotiation Management Promotes Multilateral Cooperation: The power of process in climate, trade, and biosafety negotiations by Kai Monheim discusses and compares the effectiveness and outcomes of the COP 15 and COP 16 summits. Declaration of conflict of interest: I proofread the book (and the PhD thesis it was based on) and also indexed it. JezGrove (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference&oldid=1243319666"