Talk:Climate Change

I would strongly suggest that this entire wikibook be deleted as a "wikibook" and it become a subchapter of a parental topic such as atmospheric science, meteorology, and climatology. It should also be written from the point of neutrality - which I would suggest means that as long as their is a controversial discussion about "climate change" that it not be represented from a single point of view (i.e. man-made, and/or natural).

Per the person who made this statement - "the vast majority of the scientific community now believe that we must cut our emissions or else face some truly terrible consequences." You should perhaps read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles.

Hmmm... I have to say this book is attracting more interest from Climate Change cynics than I had suspected. My own understanding of the situation is that - yes - the scientific community was unsure of the causal link between man-made pollution and climate change. But things have moved on significantly in the past few years and it's now almost certain that humans are responsible for the recent increases in temperatures that we have witnessed.

For example: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050131/full/050131-14.html

For those of you with access to the academic literature, I urge you to run some searches on "climate change". The vast majority of the scientific community now believe that we must cut our emissions or else face some truly terrible consequences. People (not to mention countless animals and plants) are already dying because of our actions. Please look at the up to date facts before posting any cynical content on this book.

Please. For the good of our planet. - Dan AKA Jack 7:10am 9th Feb 2005 GMT

Follow the money.

You need to understand academic literature and research before you can properly judge this. Consider three equally prominent (or obscure) researchers with equally sound (or unsound) science. One researcher says that we are causing our doom by our actions, one says that we are doomed no matter what, and one says that everything will be OK. Which of the three will get funding?

Going against the flow of money is a dumb career move, at least in the short term. Consider the cases of stomach ulcers (caused by bacteria) and cancer growths (which emit chemicals that cause blood vessel growth). Money went to the researchers denouncing these now-proven theories. In the field of computer science, from about 1985 to 1995 all OS researchers had to accept the idea that microkernels were superior. Those who pointed out the idiocy of microkernels were denied funding. Linus Torvalds, lead developer for Linux, was even taunted/confronted/teased/insulted by one of the big-name OS researchers for going against the fad... yet today we see that Linux is a solid high-performing OS while not even one true microkernel (no, MacOS X only pays it lip service) is into the big leagues. That big-name OS researcher had a profitable textbook to promote; you can see the bias if you follow the money. For many, tenure is at stake, and so they must support those who will be voting to grant tenure or not.

Climate change research is certainly not immune to these political problems. Researchers must defend themselves and their profitable theories. It's all "gloom and doom, but send more money and maybe we can figure something out or see how bad it is".

AlbertCahalan 02:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have just contributed some words on anthropogenic climate change. Although this is not my field, I don't want to see it parched and lifeless, if I may be allowed to freely mix metaphors:-)

My comment on Pascal's wager may be of interest regarding the arguments for and against the validity of climate change evidence.

Patrick, aka:

Logicmanalf 19:49, 31 May 2005 (BST)

When we refer to 'emissions' we may need to distinguish between the different sorts of emissions: carbon dioxide contributes around 20% of the total greenhouse effect and methane, nitrous oxide and a number of other gases contribute another 20%. Keith Thomas 12:00am GMT 14 February 2005

Sources from wikipedia
(William M. Connolley 23:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)) There are lots of source pages within wikipedia for content here: the most obvious are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/global_warming, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change and links therein.


 * (William M. Connolley 21:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Hmmm... well, the wikipedia climate change pages are fairly mature. I can't quite see the point in fighting the same old wars over here.

some scientifically oriented content
I've been editing this page a bit. I'm trying to insert some sound science into the description of climate change. I think the organization of the page needs some work too, and if I have a chance I'll try to arrange things in a little more coherent order. Skymath 07:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned pages
I found some orphaned pages related to this book:
 * Climate change-Contained "combustion"

--Derbeth talk 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Great Global Warming Swindle
A programme by the same name as this was screened in the UK in March 2007. It caused great debate because it provided a number of reasonably highly profiled academics who repudiated many of the claims of the climate change scientists. Upon closer scrutiny, however, and after watching the online debate, it would seem that the contrarian view (one often taken by this particular documentary film maker) was somewhat misinformed and misrepresented some of the facts. This massaging was sufficient to call into doubt the integrity of the programme. Others discontent with the programme, in various discussion venues on the internet cited a webpage called exxonsecrets.com which indicated cash flows from Exxon, to key government departments and research individuals, who presumably have been on the payroll to promote a degree of disinformation. It would seem that the only thing absolutely certain about climate change is that it produces spin.


 * I think that climate changes is evident, even to the proverbial blind person. The reason can be varied but thinking that humans have no impact is the same as stating that acid rain never existed, that we are not about to reach the planet record population of 9 billions (and all the related implications) and the it is becoming increasingly rare to find an ecosystem without stress due to human actions.
 * The issue is that there are geopolitic interests behind the disinformation. Coal producers for instance, and at the other end of the spectrum solar cell producers or heolic turbine manufactures. This of course in due to economic motives and in great part of the world, economics dictates policies and shapes the future. For me some of the greatest errors coming from this are the "fake solutions" like carbon trading or similar concepts, like most of the carbon capturing proposal, all these invested interests are creating a general mess on the ability to scientifically address the issues so we can at least stabilize the situation.   --Panic (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

GLOBAL DIMMING
The article fails to mention anything about global dimming. This effect, under it's current understanding, is a very large factor in the progress of the climate. Someone should add it in. LealandA (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)