Talk:Global warming controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
February 22, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
June 12, 2008Articles for deletionKept

Political Controversies and Corruption[edit]

I am posting this here because a search for "Criticism of Climate Change" redirects to this article.

The issue I want to raise relates to political controversies and corruption. For example, in Canada, climate change is associated with fraud and corruption. Green tech companies are top political donors, government officials in Ontario are currently on trial for deleting emails related to cancellation of power plants and the auditor general reported tens of billions in public waste resulting from Green Energy Act.

There is clearly an issue here that "Climate Change" is an excuse to justify corruption and put billions of public dollars into private pockets.

As I understand, climate change fraud is also a heated issue in Australia and parts of Europe.

I propose 1) add a section called climate change fraud and corruption to this article, or 2) create a separate article for politics of climate change, which separately deals with the political and public policy aspect. (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd venture to say that for any widespread idea you can find at least some instances of corruption associated with it. But do you have any reliable sources that make this case for "Climate change" (whatever that means - strictly speaking, its a predicted and observed phenomenon) in particular? BTW, we do have Individual and political action on climate change, which Politics of climate change redirects to. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd also add that there's quite a lot about climate change fraud and corruption in the climate change denial article, but perhaps that's not the fraud and corruption you were thinking of? . . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
None of that is very relevant to the topic of this article which is about climate change itself and how to deal with it etc as stated in the first sentence. We have an article Climate change in Canada for related political action in Canada. Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Global warming controversy. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


i am a student myself, and i have many topics about global warming in my book. The content in the site is relevant, but it should be easier to understand so that kids can understand it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeAngelina..... (talkcontribs) 10:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting - the page needs additional content? Where/What? Also you need to be careful when you are citing your own work - conflicts of interest obviously go against Wikipedia guidelines. Ckruschke (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Ckruschke

Internal radiative forcing[edit]

I removed "Internal radiative forcing" [1]. I don't see why it is any way notable. Spencer is notable, but not every idea of every notable person is notable, so that's no argument. Notice that the only ref to it is a webarchive; if there's no current live link or any secondary discussion, it's NN William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, "Internal radiative forcing" is not reliably sourced and pseudoscience. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion of other editors
I am One of Many, you have me laughing. That word pseudoscience is invective, it seems to say "I must be right because the people who disagree with me are pseudoscientists". But Spencer is a serious scientist, more so than you, one supposes, and you really can't hurl words like that about. In any event, this article does not seem to be about science, it begins by saying that it "concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring...", and the focus of the page is on public opinion. That would be an absurd approach to a scientific article! Moonraker (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Discussion of other editors and a general "I don't like this" is not a persuasive argument. I concur with the revert, which at least hold open the possibility of more discussion if there were current RSs. Instead you talk about other editors, and express general dislike for the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Moonraker you shouldn't make assumptions about editors, especially since you have no idea who anyone is here. That said, Spencer's "modeling" work on "Internal radiative forcing" and global warming is pseudoscience and there is not going to be a reliable source to be found.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy and I am One of Many, you have me laughing again. I see the word "pseudoscience" is being repeated, from which it's fair to draw the inference that I am One of Many's opinion of Spencer is that his work has no value and that he or she claims to know more about climate science than Spencer does. May one ask what those greater scientific qualifications are? (I don't think I have "expressed a general dislike of the article", I have simply pointed out that its focus is on public opinion. Does either of you disagree with that?) Moonraker (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
See WP:NOTFORUM; You have not made the case, based on reliable sources, that the text you wish add would be an article improvement. This talk page is for that purpose and that purpose alone, see WP:TPG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The following message has just been posted on my talk page. It seems that I am being threatened? Moonraker (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
[I redacted my signature and time stamp which Moonraker copied along with the DS notice to keep this thread comprehensible. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
In reply to this absurd post, I can point out that I am not pursuing an edit war or even arguing for someone else's addition to the page to be reinstated, I am asking questions to which replies would be appreciated, instead of threats. Moonraker (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, I must draw your attention to Wikipedia conduct policies, and in particular to Wikipedia:Harassment. Making unjustified threats is not a reasonable way to conduct a discussion on a talk page. If you were an Admin, it would be grounds for you to be recalled. Moonraker (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Being an article talk page, please see Focus on content(bullet 2), supported by WP:Reliable sources of appropriate WP:WEIGHT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Talking about pseudoscience as if it was some reason to exclude something in this article is just wrong. After all the whole point is to go into the controversy and much of it is just pseudoscience and it would be wrong to exclude it. However I agree that this particular theory just didn't make any sort of mark anywhere and so shouldn't be in. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I am One of Many and Dmcq, I don't agree that the above discussion was off topic, and I am not much concerned with the particular information about Internal radiative forcing, which doesn't seem to add much to the page: it isn't one focussed on science, more on what public opinion says, as if that mattered, and what the controversies are, which is more interesting. But I am concerned about the use of that word "pseudoscience" as an argument to delete research by Roy Spencer. The need for a neutral point of view calls for a balance of views, and you can't get to that if supporters of certain viewpoints are acceptable but those whose research disagrees with them can be dismissed as "pseudoscientists". That's the exact opposite of the scientific method. Can I am One of Many please tell us how that assessment of "pseudoscience" was arrived at? And also whether every scientist who disagrees with the alarmist point of view (such as Judith Curry, for instance), would also be removed from the page as a "pseudoscientist"? Moonraker (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
You gave the game away by referring to the scientific consensus as "alarmist," which clearly indicates that constructive discussion will not be possible. Everyone should just move along now. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why they pinged me. I was agreeing about pseudoscience not being a reason for excluding things here. However I also said that I agreed that the section just hadn't the sources or importance to justify its inclusion. Arguing about pseudoscience won't change that. The only thing that would change that is some good secondary source. Dmcq (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Moonraker, I will explain briefly what you ask—even though this is off topic for discussion on a talk page—in the hope that it will bring this discussion to an end and you can move on to other topics. Spenser's "theory" was based on a computer model that was based on scientifically implausible and false assumptions. Claims made that purport to be scientific but are based on scientifically implausible and false assumptions are pseudoscientific as I see then. So, now you have my view and we can move on.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)