Talk:Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (2005 conference)/Archive 1

Archive 1

GHG Projections in conclusion removed

The deleted text said: "Based on the current rate of increase - averaging about 2 ppm per year - greenhouse gas concentrations are likely to reach to reach 400 ppm by 2016, 450 ppm by 2041, and 550 ppm by around 2091."

This is ridiculous since current concentration of CO2e already stand at 427ppm, a 2005 figure according to EEA. The above figure is probably only CO2 concentration and not CO2e which takes in account all greenhouse gases. --Orangehues 10:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Earth

Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} —Preceding comment was added at 15:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the recent expansion of this article, and another's proposed merging with Mitigating climate change

I have reverted the change made by Editor2020 to my recent expansion of this article. "Avoiding dangerous climate change" is a substantial topic in the climate change field, and the conference about which the original article was written is a subordinate part of that. Therefore, I believe the article needs to be more comprehensive.

That said, I now notice that the title should be changed so that only the first word is capitalized. Conversely, if this were to be reverted to be an article only about the ADCC conference, "Conference" or "conference" should be added to the title, because the article title is otherwise the same as the common term, and this is confusing and misleading to readers.

It has been proposed to merge this article (as expanded) with the Mitigating climate change article. I believe the term "avoiding dangerous climate change" is common and distinctive in the literature and popular press and deserves its own article. Cross referencing the two articles is an adequate means of conveying their relatedness.

If the articles were to be merged, I believe that "avoiding dangerous climate change" is the dominant theme, and that the title of article should be changed accordingly. The reason is that the need for that avoidance is the cause, and the mitigating is about how that could be done. Mitigation is under consideration only because of the dangers that need to be avoided. Coastwise (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The two pages are written about two different topics, and therefore should not b merges.MilkStraw532 (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think, with some reluctance, I agree this page should be about the idea "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change", not just about the conference. Perhaps if the idea-text expands, the conference could get its own sub-page. The conference wasn't terribly notable, so doesn't deserve to monopolise the concept. In which case, I think I'm against the merge William M. Connolley (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

:: Concur. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC) See below.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case, Mitigating climate change should be merged here. There is no difference proposed between the subjects of the articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand your reasoning, Arthur, and there is some merit to it. However, I think we are dealing with distinct but inter-related concepts that should remain separate and be cross-reference with "see alsos" at the top of each article. Such as:

See also: Avoiding dangerous climate change (The need and policy to avoid climate change)

See also: Climate change mitigation (The means for avoiding or lessening climate change)

See also: Climate change adaptation (The means for reducing vulnerabitity to expected climate change}}

... with the appropriate pair of those appearing at the top of each of the three articles. In particular, I believe many people see the latter two as a pair of choices or interrelated actions. One of the pair avoids dangerous climate change by making the change not happen; the other avoids dangerous climate change by rendering less dangerous the change that does occur. Overarching both of them is the cause for action as determined (in sequence) by scientists and political processes. So, my view is that three separate articles is the clearest approach for readers, but with improved cross-referencing to help provide the clarity. Coastwise (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I now think this page should just be about the conference. As for the general concept of avoiding dangerous climate change, that topic consists of two main components: (A) What is the earth science and related the effects related to dangerous climate change, and (B) how can we avoid it? I now think efforts for the first part should go in effects of global warming and work on the second should go in Climate change mitigation. The advantage to that approach is (A) both of these are big topics if fully covered, and (B) it avoids redundancy with effects of global warming. Also, the title dangerous climate change now redirects to this page. Instead, I think it should be a navigation page to these other pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To explore your concept further ... (1) There are numerous pages in WP that use the term "avoiding dangerous climate change" (or close permutations of that). That is a discrete and well established term. Where do think links to that term should go? It seems to me that the target article for that should address the term directly since it is a specific and common term of art. (2) If that term were instead to go to a navigation page, what other terms that are also common on WP would also be directed there (e.g. phrasing regarding mitigation, adaptation, effects)? (3) Why would a navigation page be better than simply cross-referencing among the few related pages that are of concern here (i.e. at the tops of the pages)? Coastwise (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Good questions. You inspired me to survey the pages that use the phrase, and the results are below. I will reply to the questions later NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

ANSWERS.

Q1. I think Avoiding dangerous climate change should go to this article.

Q2. I never suggested it should instead point to a nav page, so Q2 is moot.

Q3. See answer to Q2.

SUPPLEMENTAL IDEA

I think this page should be about the conference, but we could use the ABOUT template to preface the article. I have not thought about wordsmithing, but the whatever words are used, the idea is that people arriving at this article would get teh nav info at the top of the page, before the text about the conference. The nav info would steer them as follows, for climate science behind dangerous climate change Global warming; Effects of it Effects of global warming; Ways to avoid it should be on Climate change mitigation. It solves all the problems that have been raised, I think, plus it avoids redundancies between the articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Results of survey of Eng wiki pages with exact phrase "avoiding dangerous climate change"

This thread is only intended as a reference to help in merge discussions, and is not intended as a place for discussion (except to point out any errors below)

As of Nov 12 2011, there appear to be 59 Eng wiki pages in which the reader will see the exact phrase "avoiding dangerous climate change", and they are:

1. This page
2. Phrase only used in text to describe the conference
   1. Dennis Tirpak (phrase also appears in refs)
   2. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (phrase also appears as See Also)
3. Phrase only used in text to describe general concept (2 of these avg 100-500 hits/day last Oct, the rest <100)
   1. Carbon pricing
   2. Climate Change Act 2008 (phrase also used in text to describe conference)
   3. Climate justice
   4. CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme
   5. Energy in the United Kingdom
   6. European Climate Change Programme
   7. Grantham Institute for Climate Change
   8. Individual and political action on climate change (phrase also appears as See Also)
   9. Kevin Anderson (scientist)
   10. Mitigation of global warming in Australia
   11. Ocean nourishment
   12. Politics of global warming (phrase also appears as See Also)
4. Phrase only appears in the references
   1. Amundsen Sea
   2. Economics of global warming
   3. Environmental impact of palm oil
   4. Gary Yohe (phrase appears in text as a book title)
5. Phrase appears only as a Wikilink or equivalent
   1. 2000-watt society
   2. 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference
   3. 4 Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference
   4. Abrupt climate change
   5. Business action on climate change
   6. Carbon footprint
   7. Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere
   8. Climate change, industry and society
   9. Climate change feedback (phrase also appears in the refs)
   10. Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions
   11. Climate change mitigation
   12. Effects of climate change on humans
   13. Energy policy of the United Kingdom
   14. G8+5
   15. Index of climate change articles
   16. Individual action on climate change
   17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
   18. IPCC First Assessment Report
   19. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
   20. IPCC Third Assessment Report
   21. IPCC supplementary report, 1992
   22. List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions
   23. List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita
   24. Low-carbon economy
   25. Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions
   26. Presbyterian Church (USA) Carbon Neutral Resolution
   27. Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act
   28. Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
   29. Runaway greenhouse effect
   30. Runaway climate change (phrase also appears in the refs)
   31. Scientific opinion on climate change
   32. Shrinking the footprint
   33. Solar Tres Power Tower
   34. Solar power in Italy
   35. Solar power in Spain
   36. Stern Review (phrase also appears in the refs)
   37. The 2010 Imperative
   38. The 2030 ?Challenge
   39. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
   40. Vatican Climate Forest

Please point out any errors here, but I think we can stay better organized if discussions about this breakdown appear in some other thread with appropriate section heading. Thanks, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For a complete listing there is also similar phrasing that is used in different sentence structures and the the substitution of the word preventing, as is used in the literature and the press in the same sense. So, in addition to "avoiding ..." there is avoid, preventing, prevent. Also, there are occasions were an equivalent word to dangerous is substituted, but the concept and origin are the same. I have encountered a number of these other forms on WP. Coastwise (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

True, the methodology I used was specifically geared for text the reader will see. I did not attempt to capture redirects or links to this page where the reader sees other text.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"avoiding dangerous climate change" links

How many of the last group were recently added by User:Coastwise? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Beats me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Before I got into this mess, I noticed at least 25 consecutive edits which added this article to the "See Also" section of the respective articles; there could have been more (non-consecutive) edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think all the links were added by Coastwise; about 22 links on October 31 (UTC), 1 on November 5, and 36 on November 6. I didn't check earlier edits by Coastwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I did and why I did it. In exploring WP in recent weeks I found several articles with "avoiding dangerous climate change" links that led here even though the context was about the concept, not the conference that originally was the sole content of this article. I also encountered a number of articles that used that phase or a close equivalent (see my post just made, section above) but which had no link. When time allowed, first I broadened this article to feature the concept of the phrase as well as the conference. Then I sought out the articles that use the phrase "avoiding dangerous climate change" or an equivalent. There were many with existing links and many without them. I connected those those without links to this page. In some cases there was an existing link that went to Climate_change or Global_warming. In those cases I linked the particular phrase here and made a new link from a nearby phrase of the other wording (e.g. climate change) to that other article. In this way, connectivity was added and none deleted, improving the cross-referencing in this encyclopedia. I think this is good service. Coastwise (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd call that linkspam, because you are forcing in a link to a commercial event where one wasn't needed. Secondly, I'd suggest that the title contains words unsuitable for a wikipedia article about a general concept. As such, this half of the article should be deleted, leaving only the conference with this specific title. At the moment, it's not even clear from the first line what this article is about. Dual-purpose articles don't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.227 (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

85, I think I understand what you are saying, but disagree with you on each of your five points. (1) No commercial event is linked to in the article; there is no Linkspam. (2) I can't imagine what words in the title are unsuitable for WP. (3) Following from the alleged unsuitability of the title you say the top half of the article should be deleted, but I see no merit to this argument. (4) You say that the topic of the article is unclear from the text in the first line. It seems clear to me (it is about the related terms that are listed). But I will give thought to how to make it clearer, as can others. (5) This is not a "dual-purpose article." It is an article on a single topic, including discussion both of its aspects and of a science conference that adopted the common term as its name and which looked at ways to accomplish just what that term suggests. Coastwise (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the word dangerous is leading and unqualified/unquantified. You do not get other articles with adjectives in them ("The high mount Everest"? "The new Apple iPhone"?!). You might even say that "Avoiding" is unsuitable as well.

You mention a scientific conference (which is what I thought the article was about, considering the use of capital letters). Having been to many such events, most of these require registration fees.

In any case, you need to make a clear distinction between your phrase and the specific event. Was it even notable?

Yes, the first paragraph is unclear, and if you want to keep it, it needs a complete rewrite. As an example, what is "previous science" Does this contrast with "new science"? The origin/date of the term is usually unimportant, but if included is not needed until later, after the meaning is established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.101 (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Addressing points made by 85.158.139.101:

(1) You complain about the word "dangerous" in the title. It is not a banned word; see Dangerous goods. According to WP's guidance on Article titles,

"Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors."

The wording of this title complies with that provision. It also complies with this additional guidance:

"Sometimes [a] common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue."

I submit that this title qualifies under both of those provisions.

(2) You have complained that this article includes description of a "commercial event," and clarified that you believe scientific conferences are commercial events because they charge registration fees. This is ludicrous in my view. Registration covers costs of a conferences and publication of the proceedings. Conferences themselves are generally put on by educational institutions or scientific non-profit organizations.

(3) There is a clear distinction between the title phrase (if decapitalized) and the conference. The article explains the difference and has put the conference in a separate section at the end. As several posters have commented above, and as I have always agreed, the title needs to be decapitalized to reflect the term itself rather than the name of the conference. I shall do that shortly.

(4) Obviously, "previous science" is not "new science," especially since it preceeds the 1995 date mentioned in the sentence. Nonetheless the introductory section of the article can be improved, and I shall do that. Coastwise (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(1) "Dangerous goods" is clearly an established, well known and well used term. There is no need to include this word when refering to "climate change", otherwise it becomes loaded. Indeed, people are only just accepting "climate change" as a synonym for "global warming". There is no point quoting a rule book at me on this one.

(2)/(3) It doesn't matter what the registration fees cover!! Whether it was a strictly scientific event (at which I have been a presenter several times), or whether it was a commercial event (as nearly all of them are, and I have worked in this industry for several years) makes little difference. This climate event should not become the focus of an article on wikipedia, especially if it was not notable (and there is no evidence that it was in any way notable, since climate events are ten a penny).

In any case, the etymology of a phrase is not needed until much further down the page, if at all. It shoudl never be at the start of the leader. Furthermore, this ridiculous legalese "preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" is not a well known phrase by any stretch of the imagination, and is a further candidate for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.138.22 (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed entire-page rewrite

I apologize for being such a moving target, but I have reverted to my original agreement with William, and building on his suggestion in a prior thread, here is a comprehensive suggestion:

ENTIRE PROPOSED TEXT

Avoiding dangerous climate change is the cornerstone of a nearly unanimous international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which took effect in 1994:

"The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner." (note: italics added)

This goal requires scientific understanding of global warming, deciding at what point the effects of global warming could become "dangerous", identifying the global sources of greenhouse gas emissions, and deciding how to reduce those emissions, existing atmospheric concentrations, or incoming solar radiation.

See also..... (include various links)

THIS TEXT COULD BE DELETED (While true, purpose of this section is unclear)

Avoiding dangerous climate change and similar, equivalent terms have continued in common usage in the policy community, scientific literature,

THE SUBSECTION TITLED A 2005 scientific symposium on avoiding dangerous climate change WOULD BE SPLIT OUT TO NEW PAGE

I belatedly came to appreciate William's suggestion of giving the conference its own page, and the title of that article would be the full title of the conference, "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases"

THE SUBSECTION TITLED Avoiding dangerous climate change in the current scientific context WOULD BE MOVED TO EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING

Disclaimer: I think text of this section should acknowledge that there is some evolving discussion. That said, discussion of when effects of global warming might be considered dangerous belongs on that page.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I created the breakout article on the symposium. And I migrated a lot of material over there but that has been reverted. I will try again to reduce that to a small summary section. After that, the purpose of this article will need to be examined. It is an article on what? A phrase, a concept? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Judith, I thought your original work was excellent and I think it should NOT have been reverted. But before I revert the revert, maybe others have opinions? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm weakly in favour of the new page (though just for the moment I've redirected it back here, because we don't want the same content in two places). The conference wasn't desperately notable, so (per me above) doesn't deserve to monopolise this page. OTOH, arguably, it isn't notable enough to deserve its own page William M. Connolley (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Remove 'merge-to' tag?

On 3 Dec. several 'merge-to' tags were merged into a comment at the top of the article. As the merge-to disucssion seems to have stalled out (as well as the rewrite discussion), is there any objection to removing the comment and any related tags? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I may revive my proposal later but I don't have the needed time to work on it now, so I don't mind... for now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted a series of edits by Ed Poor (talk · contribs). You wouldn't have guessed it from the edit summaries, but the net effects of the edits were as follows:

1. The opening sentence ended up telling us that 'preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, is a major objective of international interventions to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system'.
2. A link was added to Climate change. That article begins by saying, "For current and future climatological effects of human influences, see global warming." In other words, it is about every aspect of CC other than the current one. Past and finished changes are not likely still to be dangerous, are they?
3. A link to dangerous climate change was added. That is a redirect to this article.
4. A {main} link to Symposium on avoiding dangerous climate change was removed. OK, that's a redirect to this article too. I'll fix that in a minute ;-)
5. A link to [[Category:Dangerous climate change]] was added. That doesn't exist.

--Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nigel, if I'm not making the article more clear and more accessible to the lay reader, then by all means undo my changes. I didn't intend a mishmash. I'm just not clear on what "dangerous climate change" is. Does it mean that temp increases 10 degrees F? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Have a read of the article. It's all explained. First of all, the question of what the dangers are likely to be is fairly well known, "to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner". Beyond that, what temperatures to allow, and at what rate of increase, is not so clear, but there seems to be agreement that 2°C is a reasonable target at present rates of rise, but definitely not 4°C (you'll have to do your own conversions to °F). There's been a symposium on all this, and they are trying to convert these targets into CO₂ concentrations as best they can. Figures around 450 and 400 ppm have been put forward. So, out of that we can estimate required rate of emission reductions over the next 20 years. I don't see any confusion there. It would be nice if we could go from 'safe' all the way through to 'reduction targets' without so much doubt and guesswork, but actually it's largely irrelevant, as it looks like no country is seriously planning to meet their current emission reduction targets anyway. --Nigelj (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Anderson

I don't really believe:

In a July 2011 speech, climate scientist Kevin Anderson explained that for this reason, avoiding dangerous climate in conventional sense is no longer possible, because the temperature rise is already close to 1°C, with effects formerly assumed for 2°C.[14][15] Moreover, Anderson's presentation demonstrates reasons why a temperature rise of 4°C by 2060 is a likely outcome...

in the sense that while he likely said it, 4 oC by 2060 isn't a probable outcome William M. Connolley (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, William. He did not make the remark casually, and it comes near the end of the above presentation which you can watch (it is a slide presentation with audio, see link in the article's citation). The news last week that 2010 had the highest global CO2 emissions on record bears out part of his reasoning. The particular section about 4oC is at 51:20-53:30, although the earlier portions are an important lead-in. He said, "2oC stabilization is virtually impossible under the current political framework," allowing that there is still an outside chance of achieving that with some difficult changes, but "(i)f we do not make those changes now we are heading toward 4oC and it could be as early as 2050-2070." The slide itself says, "4oC by 2050-2070 looks 'likely' (could be earlier and on the way to 6oC+)." The article merely reports what he presented, as documented afterward (with links to materials) on the website of the government agency that invited the presentation. That posting seems an indication that the work merits consideration rather than dismissal out of hand.

William, when you say you think it is unlikely, is that because you do not think climate sensitivity will take us to 4C at our current level of GHGs, that current levels will eventually take us to 4C but just not that fast, or something else? I would be interested in your thoughts about the mid pliocene as an analogue, too... and this is an honest question. I have just started doing some focused reading and have no motive for asking other than I would be interested in your view. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding dangerous climate change (ie. staying under 1 degree warming) is still possible if there is *temporary* and responsibly controlled use of solar radiation management in addition to full efforts to cut emissions and to draw down excess CO2 from the atmosphere. Philip Sutton (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Kevin Anderson mentioned "temporary solar radiation management" in that speech in 2011, but the trouble with referencing a speech and not a document is that I can't search it to be sure. Please give a reference to the mins/secs where he does if I'm wrong. Secondly, you're right, that reference to 'diagrams' was added in this edit in October 2011, and there never were any diagrams. I don't know where Coastwise (talk · contribs) lifted that text from, but it makes it look as if they did - without even reading it thoroughly. Thirdly, per WP:TPG, you should start new topics at the bottom of the page: adding a new comment to a 15-month-old, dead discussion is just confusing. --Nigelj (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Title

Wow, I just found this, and what a horrible title for an article! If it is intended as a reference to a conference title, that has got to be made clear. Is there some reason the article title isn't Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (conference) or Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (conference)? The present title would make a reader think it refers to an actual process (to be elaborated in the article) with the described effect of avoiding such change. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is primarily about the term "avoiding dangerous climate change," which appears commonly on WP and the scientific and popular press. As commonly used, the term expresses a need not a means, and is used in the context of establishing guidelines or limits. A conference which bore that term as its title is also mentioned in a later section of the article. Coastwise (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, editor Coastwise is the only who thinks the conference should be part of this article. See prior threads.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever it is about should be obvious by the time a reader finishes the first para.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think (and still don't think) that an article at this title could be comprehensible and not be solely about the conference — not that I'm saying there should be an article about the conference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Arthur Rubin. We can't have an article about "a term", because we are not a dictionary. We can have an article on the conference if it is notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

When a major political document declares its PRIMARY goal, can we have an article about that concept?

*If NO, then please consider the Preamble to the US Constitution which declares Liberty to be one of the primary objectives of that document and the founding of the USA as a nation. Are you also proposing that we delete Liberty? It is a word or phrase, after all.

*If YES, then why can't we have an article about the "main objective" of an essentially unanimous global treaty (the Charter of the UNFCC)? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I still think Judith's prior split of the conference to its own page makes sense. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Our article on Liberty is about the concept of liberty, not the word. That's why freedom in its main sense redirects to it. Climate change is about the reality of climate change, not its dictionary definition. It can be a fine line but keeping on the right side of it does help us get good quality articles on the topics readers are looking for. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All words are mere symbols for concepts. Except for the conference, this article is about the concept on which the UNFCC was built. We could call that concept "snot", "George", or, in the words of the UNFCC Charter "Avoiding dangerous climate change". Regardless of its name, we are talking about a concept. So I consider your answer non-responsive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And not just a concept, but a topic of interest. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Then can you show that it is a topic discussed in a variety of sources, as opposed to just a phrase. Specifically, how is it different from climate change mitigation? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I can, and its what I want to be working on, except my time at the moment is being sucked up with issues on two other articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with NewsandEventsGuy and J.Johnson -- it is "an objective" as noted in the first paragraph, and pursuing it is a formally adopted policy, as also noted in that section. It is therefore both a concept and a topic of interest, as J. Johnson said. One or the other of the two phrases that are mentioned in the opening (of which one is also the title phrase) occur in numerous WP articles. Being able to access this article helps make readers aware that those are not just accidental phrases, and that instead they reference a particular concept and established policy. Coastwise (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

On consideration of the difference between "avoiding dangerous climate change" and "climate change mitigation": there is a distinct difference between softening and coping with an effect (mitigation), and avoiding it. Alas, I haven't had time to read both articles carefully with that distinction in mind, but it would seem a useful exercise. Also bear in mind that the avoidance is constrained to dangerous climate change. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

JJ isn't avoiding GW mitigation, and coping with it adaptation?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, "avoiding" could include moving to a different globe, "preventing" would infer changing the processes or inputs so as to stop GW from happening, and "coping" or "adaptation" could involve moving elsewhere on earth or getting better air conditioning units. None of that addresses the fact that the lead para is confusing and needs to be fixed. If we need two articles, one on the concepts and another on the conference, so be it.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Avoidance of GW – which is now moot in absolute terms, but we can think of avoiding additional increments, or the more dangerous extremes – would mean not having to cope with the consequences. (Like moving to another planet, but such a move would itself be a consequence.) This is rather at the core of the IPCC AR4 WG3 definition of "mitigation" as "implementing policies to reduce GHG emissions and enhance sinks". This somewhat weakens the distinction I would make, but the general sense of "mitigation" is more on the line of reducing or moderating the severity of an effect, including adaptations (like sun shades for glaciers). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I see LeadSongDog's point two comments above concerning the first paragraph of the article, and have reworked the the first two paragraphs to resolve that. (While at it I also smoothed other parts of the intro section.) I found that the previous first paragraph and related changes were made on December 21. I think I understand why those changes were made, and bore that in mind while making my changes tonight. Also, in the last paragraph of the intro I have made a connection to the topic of the conference that occurs later in the article, showing why it fits the topic of this article. I hope these changes will satisfy at least some of the concerns that have been expressed here. Best regards to all. Coastwise (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that attempt, but I'm not sure it has solved the problem. The lead now indicates that the article is about the phrase (and its equivalents). If that were in fact the subject, a reader would expect to see sourced discussion of the history of the specific wording, rather than discussion of avoidance, mitigation, or prevention strategies and measures. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it either, and I have partially changed my mind. To be notable, IMO this article needs to have as its main focus and subject the core objective of the UNFCC. This would make it a sub article with UNFCC as the main article, its title should be tweaked to more closely match UNFCC verbiage quoted in the lead. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  It seems to me that the this topic's notability is because it is more than a mere subtopic of UNFCCC. Rather like AR4 WG1 being more than the report of an obscure Working Group. I am also feeling some slight inclination towards this being a subtopic of Climate change mitigation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This subject

(A) begins with a science part, which should be merged to Effects of global warming, and

(B) the subject ends with options for implementing mitigation policies, which should be merged to Climate change mitigation.

(C) Inbetween the beginning and the end is the process of deciding what threshold of change would be considered "dangerous". There are a few different articles where that could be included, or maybe that is a good specific focus for an article.

IMO, the only way something like this article has notability is by tracking the history of the UNFCC core goal, from long before the charter, and continuing thru today, including policy attempts with a background of evolving science, as a sub text under UNFCC. If someone thinks some other focus can have notability carved out and separated from these other articles, then please elaborate beyond WP:ILIKEIT and provide your three best supporting RSs . NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I just made changes to the first paragraph, simplifying it to focus on the core objective. (Thanks for pointing to the need for better focus, in early comments today.) I agree with JJ that this is more than about the UNFCCC, and I can provide some brief additional text and references in a few days.

Concerning the comment immediately above, this article is about a distinct, notable topic. The topic is frequently referenced in science and in policy development. It in turn frequently comes into play in many different concerns (e.g. efforts to mitigate climate change), but is not exclusive to any of them.

I'll come back to that. For now, I'm thinking about the conference. Coast, so far as I am aware, you are the only one who thinks the conference was notable enough to cover. Were you there? Did you present a poster or something? I just ran thru the various points at WP:EVENT and for the life of me I can not shoehorn the conference into compliance with the inclusion criteria. By citation to the specific criteria, can you provide an explanation, with RSs, to explain how the conference meets the notability criteria for events? Bear in mind whatever you write needs to be about this conference, not something generic that could equally well apply to any climate change conference (for example, "Four Degrees and Beyond" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

News&EventsGuy, here is my response:

FIRST, you have removed the last paragraph of my previous comment, including my signature. (See:[1]). Here is that comment in its entirety, as originally published:

I just made changes to the first paragraph, simplifying it to focus on the core objective. (Thanks for pointing to the need for better focus, in early comments today.) I agree with JJ that this is more than about the UNFCCC, and I can provide some brief additional text and references in a few days.

Concerning the comment immediately above, this article is about a distinct, notable topic. The topic is frequently referenced in science and in policy development. It in turn frequently comes into play in many different concerns (e.g. efforts to mitigate climate change), but is not exclusive to any of them.

I do not believe (A), (B) and (C) are a fair characterization of the article. The beginning is about both science and policy. The second section is about how the concept is evolving in science. An important addition would be a similar section concerning how it is used and evolving in the policy realm. And the article does not end with (or deal with at all) implementing mitigation policies. It ends with a discussion about a scientific conference on the topic. This is a notable topic in its own right. Coastwise (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

SECOND, The title of your second to last post (see: [2]), asked a question: "Title: the conference happened, yes indeed. But (((((((why)))))))))) of (((((((all)))))))))) the conferences on climate change is this one so special?"

The conference is included in the article because it is specifically about the article's topic, and even used as its title a phrase that is commonly used to express the topic the article is about.

THIRD, you ask: "Were you there? Did you present a poster or something?"

No, I did not attend the conference, present anything there, or have any connection at all with the conference. Some time ago I stumbled on this article which at the time was solely about the conference, having clicked on a link for "avoiding dangerous climate change" that was a general reference to the concept, and not about the conference. That was the first I had heard of the conference. I ended up here several more times from similar links, and recognized that the article should be expanded to focus on the concept, and make the conference secondary to that.

BTW, I found the story about the conference to be of interest when I landed here, and I am sure many others who read the article do as well.

FOURTH, you say, "I just ran thru the various points at WP:EVENT and for the life of me I can not shoehorn the conference into compliance with the inclusion criteria. ... can you provide an explanation, with RSs, to explain how the conference meets the notability criteria for events?"

You are misapplying this policy. It is about whether a stand-alone article should be created for an event:

"... not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is ..." (Emph. added)

Moreover, this article complies with the recommended solution in WP:Event for when the notability of an event in a stand-alone article is in question, since in essence I have already applied that principle here by broadening this article to include the main topic and not just its original content of the conference alone:

"If the notability of an event is in question but it is primarily associated with a particular person, company or organization, or can be covered as part of a wider topic, it may preferable to describe the event within a preexisting article ..." (Emph. added)

FINALLY, my perception is that for some time on this page you have been grasping at any and every straw you can find to justify dismantling the article. When a good answer is given or an edit is made to address one of your complaints, then you find yet another straw to grasp, toward that end. If I'm wrong about your intent, my apology, but that is my frank perception. Coastwise (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I am truly sorry about deleting that paragraph, Coast. I don't know what happened, unless I got some "help" from my 3 year old who was in my office at the time. It was not done on purpose. And I grant your point about WP:EVENT steering us away from the separate article idea. Moving on to a new issuee, nearly all the links in the conference section are dead, and another one has failed verification. Can you fix the link rot? I looked a little bit in case the pages just moved to a new hosting url but failed to find them. Unless you or someone else can restore them, or come up with alternatives, the conference section will be left with no sources, and will be deletable on that basis. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kim... I see that you fixed one of the links; I called the redirect link a dead link; you called it not dead; but the important thing is that was fixed.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Since we already have an article on climate change mitigation, I've changed the focus of this article to be on the symposium. Otherwise, the scope of the two articles would be essentially the same. I also support changing the title of the article to something like "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (conference)" so that it is less confusing. Kaldari (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If I assume you read the various points made in this thread, then I'm irked you just went ahead and did that without even attempting to discuss the various points made in this thread. This article could be tightened up and better coordinated with the other perhaps. If you care strongly enough, how about tagging both with the appropriate merge templates, starting a new thread to discuss changes to both; and then adding a pinpoint link to that thread to both templates? That way, eds at the other article will also know about the discussion and you can make your case for everyone. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: There is no reason for us to have two articles with the exact same subject. Climate change mitigation is 2 years older and has far more content, so it gets priority for the scope. You can't have 2 articles with the same scope. I don't need to "make a case" for that. It is common sense and a core organizing principle of the encyclopedia. If you want to move any material from this article to the other one, be my guest, but there is no reason to restore such material here. Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The scopes of the two articles are adequately distinguished from each other. Coastwise (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

How exactly are they distinguished? The titles mean the same thing. What is the difference between "avoiding dangerous climate change" and "climate change mitigation"? Please explain the difference to me. Kaldari (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The present article concerns the scientific and agreed policy imperatives to avoid damaging climate change, which is a topic unto itself, and the title comes from a commonly used phrase that is of interest to readers. The other article, as stated in its first line, concerns the different topic of "the actions being taken," and the title of that one too is a common phrase that is of interest to readers. Both articles are sufficiently detailed and distinct that they are appropriate as stand-alone articles. Of course, as is the case among the many sets of articles within WP that are related to each other, they should be interlinked. Following the title of the present article (preceding the body of the article) is a prominent "See also: Climate change mitigation". I note however that the other article is no longer well-linked to this one and that should be remedied. Coastwise (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Reaction to the symposium section

Kim, Coastwise, others.... if the part about the Brits taking action were in a section about the evolving ideas (or whatever) about the subject, that would be fine with me. I'd like to see the article review the evolving thinking about climate change, danger, and should we avoid any of it? And the Brits action could certainly be a point on the timeline. So could a couple sentences about the conference. However right now we have a bit of WP:OR creating the bridge between the symposium and whatever the committee in Britain told the govt a couple years later, and the Brits' action seems to be there to imply that the conference was a hugely notable thing, instead of being there because the Brits action itself was a very notable thing. I agree the conference probably played a role in the Brits action but (A) we don't have a source that says so without us supplying a bit of [{WP:OR]] or WP:SYN or something like that, and (B) mention of the Brits act as propping up the symposium's import takes away from the import of the Brits act itself. I'll leave it unchanged for now in case you or someone can supply a direct, explicit bridge between the conference and the Brit's governments action, instead of the implicit one we have now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this section is that you can derive to similar scopes on related symposiums or conferences as well. There is undue weight to this particular symposium, and it is old data anyway. prokaryotes (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge into Climate change mitigation

This entire article is a POV fork of Climate change mitigation, and I see no reason to keep it, as the title is biased, and if you were to reword it, it would be a how to guide on how to avoid climate change (if you were to call it "Avoiding climate change". Even if you were to make the case that "Avoiding climate change" doesn't imply WP:HOWTO, you still can't ignore that this article is redundant to Climate change mitigation. Why do we have a separate article on avoiding climate change, if climate change mitigation is basically the exact same title? Why isn't this merged yet? 123chess456 (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed This article is (or should be) about the goal - the metrics of the goal, who set it, how they set it, what people say about it. The other article is (or should be) about one of the means of achieving the goal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed 123Chess, I have removed your flag for POV-fork from the main article. Firstly, you should have allowed reasonable time for your concern to be discussed here. Primarily, however, neither the article nor its title are POV (see the first section of that topic's TOC). The article is compliant with all five of those bullets. You apparently take the title to be expressing opinion. It does not. The title is an imperative broadly recommended by climate scientists globally and adopted as policy by many governmental bodies worldwide, and is in fact one of the exact phrases that they use. It may be that you don't like it, but that is not sufficient reason for a merger. Regarding your final point, climate change mitigation is not "basically the exact same title" or topic, as has already been discussed above on this page. (I oppose a merger, but if there were one, the other article would logically fit as a subsection of this one, because actions taken follow the imperative that drives them.) Coastwise (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Opposed The use of this phrase and its variant by the UN and many other bodies and individuals, since 1992, is well established in the WP:LEDE, and elaborated with full citations throughout the body. It is a perfectly ordinary English phrase, but its continual use, by so many august bodies, in so many ways, for so many years, makes it WP:NOTABLE. This is not a POV dispute, it is an example that one "of the parties to the dispute did not understand either the NPOV policy, or enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing favoring one POV had actually been said" - WP:DRIVEBY. --Nigelj (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion Closed. I am closing this discussion and am removing the merge tags, since weeks have gone by and the merger is solidly opposed. Coastwise (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Good. MaynardClark (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Rewriting?

I don't know how others feel about the sentence structure in this article, but I find it problematic and think that a pretty thorough rewrite of most if not all paragraphs would contribute a far better, much-improved article to Wikipedia and to its readers. MaynardClark (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, which parts exactly? And ofc there is always room for improvements. If you find an error then please fix it or suggest something, thanks.prokaryotes (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point, Maynard. I made some edits tonight. One section in particular has no citations and needs a lot of work, including additional material. Coastwise (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Added a ref which covers the entire section without citation, you've mentioned, and edited - which was a bit confusing. The linked articles also include relevant information on dangerous climate change, i.e. diseases, or uninhabitable regions, due to the wet bulb temperature.prokaryotes (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Following AFD discussion (Feb 2016)

Thread withdrawn in favor of RfC discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article was put to AfD in February 2016. It was closed after a bit less than three weeks as "no consensus" with the comment "No consensus for deletion, but consensus that something should be done editorially to fix the overlap with related articles. It's not clear from this discussion how to best proceed, though. Further discussion may be needed." Maybe it would have been more practical to relist the AfD since there was ongoing discussion, but I am not sure of what the guidelines say, and anyways that is not DRV-worthy. A DR/N notice was posted (presumably by Mr.Magoo) but denied. So, here we are. Pinging editors involved in the AfD: Jsharpminor (talk · contribs), Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs), Coastwise (talk · contribs), MaynardClark (talk · contribs), Shritwod (talk · contribs), Mr._Magoo_and_McBarker (talk · contribs), DMacks (talk · contribs), SatansFeminist (talk · contribs), AnotherNewAccount (talk · contribs). There seemed to be no dispute of the fact that this article was originally about a specific conference before it turned into some kind of hub for articles related to climate change mitigation. I stand by the views I expressed at the AfD: in order of decreasing conviction strength, That title (avoiding dangerous climate change) is inferior to climate change mitigation if the article is understood with wide scope, because "dangerous" is somewhat POV; CCM (a neutral formulation) covers the same scope. The 2005 conference is notable enough for a standalone article. The terms "dangerous climate change" are somewhat notable in the context of international texts using them. Thus, I recommend to make so that: The current content is scrapped. Avoiding dangerous climate change (conference) (or a similar title) is created based on an old rev of the page, it is a stub article about the conference (and will probably remain a stub forever). Dangerous climate change (currently a redirect to here) is a short article about the use of the term in international relation speak. I refrained to recommend "delete", "rename" etc. because the actions to take might nontrivially depend on the desired result. For instance, if consensus is against my #3 for lack of notability (which I would not lose sleep over), the conference page might not need the DAB "(conference)" and could receive redirects from other pages + a hatnote pointing to CCM. No need to fight against what should be done, the real issue is what we want to have in the end. Tigraan (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC) It'll possibly result in no concensus again if you relist at AfD. AfD doesn't really deal with something like this even though this was first discovered and argued about there. I tried listing straight away at DRN since RFCs are a very vague tool which takes months to achieve a result if a result happens at all (RFCs result more in no concensus than AfDs). However the DRN was nigh instantly shut down as there hadn't been a months long discussion here yet. Now we're having it and possibly going back to DRN in a few months, judging from my experience with other contested RFC discussions... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC) There is already a post-AfD discussion on-going for three days in the section above this one. I respectfully ask the original poster of this section to consider deleting this one, and to instead comment in that prior section. Coastwise (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081020202051/http://nds.coi.gov.uk:80/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=381477&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False to http://nds.coi.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=381477&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Originally about 2005 conference

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article be returned to be about the 2005 conference and let Climate change mitigation be about the general climate change mitigation matter? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Explanation See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change.

This article was originally about Avoiding dangerous climate change (2005 conference). We already have Climate change mitigation about the main matter. In 2011 the article was changed to be about the general concept of climate change mitigation, only under a different name. At the AfD it was pointed out that the different name isn't that common. After this was pointed out at the AfD the broad concensus was to revert back to the version before the change and possibly rename the article, adding (2005 conference) after it. Since this is a very unorthodox situation at the AfD and it had no relation to normal procedures, it was closed as simply no concensus. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Revert years back was a common position during the AfD debate. I think this should happen and any usable material that would be excised should be merged into other articles where possible. Shritwod (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• Revert if not in actuality, at least in spirit. This edit writes the textbook on page hijacking; I defy any editor to find a more egregious example. This page needs to be rewritten to be about the 2005 conference, and not about the vaguely-defined concept, which is clearly already well-covered by Wikipedia. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep current breadth of content. (1) The article covers a s!ubstantial concept that has been the subject of years of international diplomacy and scientific reseach, as well as being the subject of a scientific conference that was held on the topic. Covering all these topics together is sensible. (2) The present title differs from the original only in capitalization. At the time the article was expanded and the capitalization changed (2011), WP links to the article concerned the overall concept, not the conference particularly. (3) The article has been reasonably expanded, not hijacked. (4) Broad consensus on the talk page has been to not merge the article (see second section upward from here). (5) The expanded article has existed for nearly 4-1/2 years. (6) I advocate reverting the article to the recent version 701511859 of January 24, 2016, which devoted 7 paragraphs to the conference instead of the present two sentences, with future improvements to start from there. Coastwise (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

(1) is a non-sequitur: climate change mitigation is a notable topic, but climate change mitigation as an article exists, and you have not proved either that ADCC is an independant, standalone-worthy topic, or that ADCC is a better place to deal with this. (2) and (3) are in my view irrelevant: you did "hijack" the article by expanding considerably its scope but someone's "hijack" is another's "bold change". (4) is a rewriting of history: as one can see, the merge request was made and refused about POV-fork concerns, and the scope of the article was not discussed seriously (unlike here); and anyways, consensus can change. (5) is a textbook example of WP:ARTICLEAGE. Finally, if one scraps (6) of the technicalities, it just suggests that the article should keep the largest scope possible (and I disagree, as most others do, per discussion elsewhere). Tigraan (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Rename the current title "Avoiding dangerous climate change" screams essay. The first step is to find a title which limits the scope of the article making it clear what it is about. Either Avoiding dangerous climate change (2005 conference) or something like Avoiding dangerous climate change (policy objective). In the AFD Coastwise (talk · contribs) makes a good point that the subject is subtly different from Climate change mitigation: "The ADCC one covers the imperative of science and society to address climate change that would be dangers. The CCM article covers how to reduce those harms" there might be a title which makes that distinction clear. --Salix alba (talk): 08:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• Rename it could even be renamed 'avoiding dangerous climate change conference' (though I wouldn't have thought such a conference is particularly noteworthy anyway) to make it clear it's about a conference. The current title is not encyclopedic, and the content duplicates several articles. My view is merge really, very few conferences would be worth their own article. SatansFeminist (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• Split into Avoiding dangerous climate change (conference) (dealing with the conference, based on an old rev) and Dangerous climate change dealing with the international texts with an extremely restricted scope (who used the term). Add a redirect ADCC —> ADCC (c) with a hatnote.

I stand by the views I expressed at the AfD: in order of decreasing conviction strength,

1. The current title ("avoiding dangerous climate change") is inferior to climate change mitigation if the article is understood with wide scope, because "dangerous" is somewhat POV; CCM (a neutral formulation) covers the same scope, really.
2. The 2005 conference is notable enough for a standalone article.
3. The terms "dangerous climate change" are somewhat notable in the context of international texts using them.

For that specific article I do not really like the "delete", "rename" etc. polling format that goes on at AfD or here because the actions to take might nontrivially depend on the desired result. For instance, if consensus is that my #3 is not notable enough to warrant an article (which I would not lose sleep over), the conference page might not need the DAB "(conference)" and could receive redirects from other pages + a hatnote pointing to CCM.

And I apologize for creating another section for discussion, I somehow did not see that RfC appear.Tigraan (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:AnotherNewAccount's comment on the title, below. Tigraan (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Revert - back to circa 2012, because if you just follow the cites and apply due WP:WEIGHT, search for the phrase is overwhelmingly about the conference and book from it, and the article was stable about that for circa 6 years. But now it looks like it lost focus and included many things that do not use the term, are not associated to that conference, and has become a WP:COATRACK for dupe of material of other articles. Revert. Markbassett (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Revert, move and merge: This page can really only stand alone as a discussion of the conference. The topic itself is covered at length in other articles already mentioned, and if there is any material here which isn't already present at Global warming or Climate change mitigation, it can be merged to those articles. The article should definitely be renamed to be explicitly about the conference, to avoid another round of this discussion. --Slashme (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Question: Do we have articles on other similar conferences to compare with? I can see potential for a single timeline article about a sequence of conferences. That could serve to create context. In the few cases where an individual conference was truly notable (not just for transient protest journalism, but for substantial impact, treaties, or similar) those conferences or agreements might justify their own articles. It appears, however that this was more of a "bridge the gap" effort between IPCC3 and IPCC4, intended to maintain some momentum. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not think this particular conference was "truly notable with substantial impact, treaties, or similar", and it was likely there to fill a gap. But the question is whether the conference is worth an article. There are articles in the main press, so it passes WP's notability criteria to my eyes.

If there were thousands of such conferences every year, I think WP:MILL would apply even in the presence of strong sources, but that is just not the case. Tigraan (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Passing mention of the conference in news articles the same week (25 Jan to 3 Feb 2005) is hardly convincing either: these articles are more about the conference subject than about the conference itself. So, it was a conference about a very important topic, and that topic got the press briefly interested enough to mention the conference, as in "We need more fillers, Paul, what can you find us going on with the global warming story this week?" That's not the stuff of an encyclopedia. The pertinent policy is wp:N(E). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs)

Hmm, fair enough. Somehow I did not notice how close to each other (temporally) those articles were. Tigraan (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Revert years back, or at least restore the conference material and merge the non-conference material into Climate change mitigation, for the reasons I explained in the AfD. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that "avoiding dangerous climate change" is an actual "thing" worthy of a dedicated article. It's fairly easy to hit Google Books or Scholar to look for books and papers that mention the phrase in passing, but I think that's a pretty poor indicator, quite frankly.

Politicians and policy-makers often develop, maintain and advocate policies and mantras, repeated in speeches, interviews and soundbites, that are nonetheless not entirely worthy of a dedicated article: "Reducing the national debt", "Increasing government efficiency", "Reducing child poverty" etc. Article titles like this are problematic POV titles because they imply inappropriately that such a policy or action is desirable. Even a "motherhood and apple pie" issue, such as "Finding a cure for cancer", could cause problems if the title invites advocacy for specific public policy measures, such as the provision of government money.

In general, I think any "active participle-noun"-type subjects ought to redirect to their relative nouns, as Reducing the risks of Asthma and Increasing incidence of skin cancer currently do. I see there's now some discussion on whether the conference itself is notable. I have no opinion on that. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Revert to being just about the conference (or even merge!) -- coatrack of an article as it is. Very POV title per User:AnotherNewAccount's arguments -- note that "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are terms that have appeared in print thousands of times more than "avoiding dangerous climate change" but they still are redirects to the philosophies that the terms represent rather than being articles unto themselves. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Revert/move to the article about conference. Please keep in mind that the title must be all-caps, since it is confefence name Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases. Even the lede of the current article is WP:SYNTH. We already have several other forks to deal with: Climate change mitigation, Climate change mitigation scenarios, Climate action, - in addition to this one. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually that isn't All caps, it's Title case, but yes, that would be correct for an article about the conference. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Revert to the conference article of the two choices presented. Current article is not written as an encyclopedia article and doesn't seem to present information that is not adequately covered elsewhere. Klaun (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• It seems that consensus is emerging to rename this article to Avoiding dangerous climate change (2005 conference). I would WP:BOLDly do it right now, but I read again the general sanctions warning at the top of this very talk page. Am I basically right here? I would be in favor of any editor performing the rename at this point, because it looks like consensus is to rename the article and strip the unrelated material from it. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 16:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I fail at reading comprehension. Sorry about that. Here, I'll try again:

With all the comments regarding how the conference itself may or may not merit its own article, should we relist this article at AfD? The general feeling I'm getting is that there really is no consensus to keep the article in its current form. Is it too soon to start wrapping it up and asking "where, exactly, do we go from here?" J^♯m (talk | contribs) 16:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is best to wait for an admin closure here. The consensus seems to be to remove the coatrack material about the importance of "avoiding dangerous climate change", and restore the article back to being about the conference. Another poster suggested that the name should be capitalized in line with any proper noun, that is, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. An appropriate name could be Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (2005 conference) as you suggested, or perhaps simply Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (conference). I agree it's important to make it clear to the reader and any future editors that the locus of the article is about a conference. Now, whether the conference itself is notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia is a whole other discussion. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It has been two weeks now, but there seems to be a fairly clear consensus that the article should not deal with CCM. However it is not clear whether an article about the conference should remain, and under which title. (FWIW, a capitalized title seems to me bette than my former suggestion of "(2005 conference)".)

I would propose to revert years back "boldly" (after a month or so of discussion, between the AfD and the RfC...), and immediately put the resulting article at AfD (with a helpful summary/links in the nomination so that contributors do not enter the jungle unprepared). The revert itself is fairly consensual, and it would be a better starting point for AfD discussion. Tigraan (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Revert to the conference version and possible merge with Climate change mitigation or another suitable article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Split as per Tigraan above. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Merge and/or Delete - (summoned by bot) Possibly merge with Climate change mitigation? This article is sorta silly. The title alone seem to suggest we're in violation of WP:NOTESSAY. How did this thing survive deletion? NickCT (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Revert/merge or delete Avoiding dangerous climate change isn't an encyclopedic topic. It isn't a thing on its own. To use Jsharpminor's wording, "[d]angerous climate change is a thing to be avoided, but it is not itself an article subject. 'Avoiding dangerous climate change' isn't a thing, and I would challenge anyone who says otherwise to prove it with Google search results". I disagree with the result of the AfD how the AfD was closed. There were three keep !votes. One claims that it "is definitely a thing" and is "not SYNTH" with no justification or reasoning for either. The next cites an essay without specifying which of its many points are relevant and also cites the previous discussion. I don't see any well-reasoned points in that discussion, but I could be missing something. The last keep !vote brings up the content and quality of writing in the article, which are irrelevant to the reasons given for deletion. Those last two !votes also "ask that the AfD flag be summarily removed", implying that their writers are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy, and, not that that alone should discredit their opinions, it makes me trust those opinions less when they don't cite policy. I think the current title of this article is horrible. When I first saw this discussion, and even when I started writing this comment, hence the struck-out sentences above, I though that the problem was WP:SYNTH. When I considered "Climate change mitigation", though, I thought about the differences between those titles. I think the two main problems are with WP:NOUN, in that the word "avoiding" should be replaced with one (as in the other title's use of "mitigation"), and WP:NPOVTITLE, in that "dangerous" is an opinion and should be removed, even if sources agree with it. It isn't part of what the subject is; it's an adjective that should be kept separate from the name of the subject. When these issues are fixed, we get back to "Climate change mitigation", which is a much better title and one that follows policy. This article should be about the conference (or deleted if that conference isn't notable), and any extra material that doesn't overlap with that of "Climate change mitigation" should be moved there. KSFT^C 20:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC closure requested

This RfC has been open for a month. Can we have an admin close it? I think consensus may have been established. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think that two ways came up as most popular. The first was the revert and the second was a complete scrapping of this article (as a merge or a delete). Maybe we need further discussion about which of these two, but nevertheless this RfC has lived its usability. Thus the admin could close as one of these two but without deciding between these two. If the answer to either or isn't easy, I could make a new RfC about it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any arguments to get rid of this article. It should be made to be about the conference, and content about climate change mitigation should be moved to "Climate change mitigation". Whether there should be an article about the conference is a discussion for a separate AFD after this RFC is closed. Non-admins can close RFCs too, by the way. We just need someone uninvolved. KSFT^C 02:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we can agree on this revision as the one to revert to, although three of the five references are broken links, along with the further reading link and about half of the external links, which makes me question the notability of the conference. Again, though, that's a discussion for an AFD. KSFT^C 02:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• You're right, that discussion belongs at AfD. I don't know how I didn't even think of it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for closure seconded. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Requests for closure should be posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a huge amount of experience with RFC, so I'm not sure why, but a bot removed the RFC template. The consensus is very clear, though, so I will revert the article to the revision I linked to above. If anyone thinks that the conference isn't notable, they can list the article at AFD. KSFT^C 01:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926224531/http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/research/dangerous-cc/pdf/avoid-dangercc.pdf to http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/research/dangerous-cc/pdf/avoid-dangercc.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2007-04-19T182132Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-294813-1.xml&archived=False

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 15:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The first change was good. I have edited the second one with a correct link, in the article. Coastwise (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930154651/http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?NewsAreaID=2&ReleaseID=134475 to http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?NewsAreaID=2&ReleaseID=134475
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080128225004/http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/envir/011a0006.htm to http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/envir/011a0006.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20060318090104/http://www.stabilisation2005.com/outcomes.html to http://www.stabilisation2005.com/outcomes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925193036/http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000001451.asp to http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/n_0000001451.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to either modernize the page or to delete it

This page is now so outdated that it is misleading. The 2005 conference is now irrelevant. Raggz (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Raggz (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is it irrelevant? it has certainly faded into history, but so have many other conferences. It is linked from many places. It could be renamed "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (2005 conference)" at the cost of a lot of pointless churn, but what would be gained? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 paper

In regards to this revert which I did see first the edit summary. In addition to those reasons, see the hatnote on this article. It comes back to me now that years back we debated whether this article should go beyond the scope of the conference and we decide not to do that. Instead, add this material to climate change mitigation and maybe Runaway climate change. This article could be polished up to be more about the conference, and using RSs we could do a better job of describing the "best guess on what we know so far" thinking, while also saying we keep learning more and there's increasing worry at lower levels. But I'm opposed to topic-drift and the long term maintenence headache created when we shoehorn in multiple mentions of the latest paper in any sorta-topical article. Doesn't do our readers any favors to have so much overlap either. Really dilutes their experience, as opposed to a well-organized branching tree of articles. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The scope of the conference about targets, the lede adds something on this, adding a brief mention what the current understanding suggests, is within the article scope (its from an authoritative study team). The new study specifically casts doubt on the safety of 2C limit approach. Please add that part again! prokaryotes (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The 2005 conference wasn't called to explore the 2C threshold set 5-6 years later in Paris, so obviously there are no RSs that say it was and we shouldn't be cramming that number into the lead about a meeting in 2005. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

But the conference concluded in regards to the 2C limit (as per the Conclusions section), referenced per https://archive.is/20060318090104/http://www.stabilisation2005.com/outcomes.html And since you seem unwilling to re-add my edit, can you point out what you deem wrong with it (per your revert comment). prokaryotes (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

What you removed is spot on, "examined the link between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, and the 2 °C (3.6 °F) ceiling on global warming thought necessary to avoid the most serious effects of global warming" While some edits you made are good, but not all are. prokaryotes (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You can say anything is spot on, but you have to provides sources. The only source you provided is a directory of links, I have no idea what text you mean. Following your link for the conference summary produces a DEAD link. But never fear, I found a working link to the exec summary. I have no objection to adding appropriate text summarizing their conclusions. The defiite "ceiling thought necessary to avoid the most serious effects of GW" does not in fact exist. What does exist is a 2C target at which by international political agreement we hope to have a 50-50 chance of avoiding dangers climate change, and that number wasn't established beyond scientifists' recommendations until Paris. Somewhere there is a story of how the lead scientists appealed to the chair the night before the agreement to say while the politicians talked, new science lowered the recommended number for a 50-50 chance to 1.5C, but I can't remember where I saw that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The lede summary "examined the link between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, and the 2 °C (3.6 °F) ceiling on global warming thought necessary to avoid the most serious effects of global warming" still holds, I have nothing against editing it, but the summary figures should remain. I notice that you continue to follow almost all of my recent edits, and then often reverting me or beginning editing out details, again please read WP:HOUND. If you want to make drastic changes, please discuss on talk first, since the earlier version seems to be what most past editors agreed upon. The summary you links, points out the extremes and the 2C target: prokaryotes (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The impacts of climate change are already being observed in a variety of sectors Ecosystems are already showing the effects of climate change. Changes to polar ice and glaciers and rainfall regimes have already occurred. While consistent with model projections the links to anthropogenic climate change need to be investigated further. Many climate impacts, particularly the most damaging ones, will be associated with an increased frequency or intensity of extreme events. This is an important area for further work since many studies do not explicitly take into account the effects of extremes, although it is known that such extremes pose significant risks to human well being. The heat-wave that affected Europe in 2003 is a prime example. Adaptive capacity is highly important to lessening the potential future dangerous effects of climate change. In some sectors and systems this capacity may be sufficient to delay or avoid much potential damage, though in others it is quite limited. [..]

..limiting warming to 2 C above pre-industrial levels with a relatively high certainty requires the equivalent concentration of CO2 to stay below 400 ppm. Conversely, if concentrations were to rise to 550ppm CO2 equivalent, then it is unlikely that the global mean temperature increase would stay below 20 C. Limiting climate change to 20 C above pre-industrial levels implies limiting the atmospheric concentration of all greenhouse gases. Based on new insights into the uncertainty ranges of climate sensitivity, a stabilisation at 450 ppmv CO2 equivalent would imply a medium likelihood (~50%) of staying 3 below 20 C warming.

(A) You're welcome to continue the discussion of our behavior and interaction at my user talk. Here, please focus on content.

(B) Now we're making progress. You have identified the text you're looking at in an RS. ITs true that text discusses 2C. However, it emphatically says nothing about 2c being "the ceiling on global warming thought necessary to avoid the most serious effects of global warming" as you claim. I have started text that talks about how 2C really did become an international target and what it represents. That text still needs sources. Instead of fighting over text that doesn't have support in the RS language you quote, we could maybe work on improving the couple sentences about Paris and a later research? Would end up having the concepts you wawnt, but with text supported by RSs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

(B) This is the summary report of the conference which concludes climate change = more extremes, then points out the temperature targets. Because I have to explain this to you, means, that you likely look for exact definitions, but the summary report must be judged in it's entirety, and past editors have written the summary which you question. I see that you added something back, but omitting extreme weather (besides the summary reports mentions it). I think you should look again how you read summary reports, and judge long standing article content with achieved urls, general assumption should guide. I know this can be hard sometimes. prokaryotes (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I am never satisfied with my own ability to do those things. Thanks to contemporaneous editing it seems the constructive thing to do is just WP:DROPTHESTICK as the article has evolved to side step debate over the exec summary as regards former text about the 2c supposed "ceiling" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"Catastriphic climate change" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Catastriphic climate change. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Catastriphic global warming" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Catastriphic global warming. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Avoiding Dangerous Global Warming" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Avoiding Dangerous Global Warming. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Avoiding dangerous global warming" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Avoiding dangerous global warming. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Dangerous climate change" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dangerous climate change. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Dangerous global warming" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dangerous global warming. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Stabilisation of greenhouse gases" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stabilisation of greenhouse gases. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)