Talk:Global warming

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Transwikied material[change source]

I have transwikied the now deleted page Global warming (simplified) from the main English wikipedia after the AfD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming/Global warming (simplified). I intend to clean it up and simplify it shortly. --Ezeu 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted content[change source]

I deleted this because it was not from a NPOV. Is the globe warming? Global warming is a very serious and real thing. Many people try to close their eyes and pretend it’s not there. If you can’t see it, it's not there right? Wrong. Global warming is something as real as you or me. And something needs to be done about it, or we are going to drive our own species into extinction, not mentioning the rest of the world. A skeptic to the point of human life might find this a good thing; luckily, however, most people aren’t. There are many affects global warming will have upon the world. . Mountains in the Pacific Northwest are projected to lose as much as 88 percent of average snow by 2090; the Central Rocky Mountains could lose up to 75 percent; and parts of the Southern Rockies and the Sierra Nevada range could lose 98-100 percent. It is drastic, if we keep living the way we do today, how much impact the heat will have on the sun. Considering that many people get their water from melt water on glaciers and snow, there will become a serious problem with lack of drinking water. This will place considerable strain on the region’s water supply. Along with the snow disappearing wetlands will too. This includes areas that provide critical breeding and wintering habitat for waterfowl. Global warming will also create more heat waves, droughts, and wildfires. The past nine years were the warmest years to record and scientists project that the heat waves will just become more intense and more frequent unless the CO2 in the atmosphere is severely reduced. Warmer, drier conditions due to global warming have caused a four-fold increase in the number of major wildfires in western forests and a six-fold increase in the area of forest burned since the mid-1980s. It is scary how much damage heat can cause. Not only will the environment be affected, but living things will be too. Diseases will spread if the head becomes higher. More insects and disease causing parasites will be able to move farther north and not be killed by cold winters. This will increase the risk of parasitic diseases in humans and animals alike. Habitat for animals will be reduced over time to almost nothing at all. Sagebrush habitats are predicted to decline by 59 percent by the end of THIS century. This will create devastating consequences for the sage grouse, mule deer, pronghorn and other western species that depend on sagebrushes. Streams will also have a higher temperature making fish and water animals that depend on cold water die off. Most innocent highland animals have no hope in the future, such as the mountain goats, bighorn sheep and ptarmigan. As temperatures continue to rise, they are forced higher and higher in elevation to keep the same habitat. This can’t continue forever you can imagine. So many animals are affected by global warming that extinction is a huge concern. Many species have already seen the end of their rope. This has been writen by J. C. @ Braddock school. --Sir James Paul 02:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fringe views given undue weight, and other errors[change source]

I see from this reversion that there is no point in trying to improve the articles here, as people with fixed views, and apparently little actual knowledge, just dominate and bully new editors. I am not going to go through each of the improvements I made in detail, relating each one to scientific papers and other reliable sources, as I see from your 'Notes and references' section that you don't bother much with any of those those here. I suppose you all just 'know' what's right and so there's no point in discussing it. Is that right? -- (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am the editor who undid it, and I apologize if you felt bullied or dominated. Your second change looks better than the first. The reason I undid the first edit was because, even though many scientists believe in global warming, we can't have a definite point of view on the matter. You removed "believed to be a result of greenhouse gas", and "yet has not been confirmed as a actual objective of existence, and is in debate," and "Some say the change is not the fault of humans." These are there to show both sides of the argument and let the reader decide what is truth, not give our own opinions. American Eagle  21:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article should reflect that a strong majority of scientists accept manmade global warming, however, phrases such as "others want to argue with this" are very loaded and thus do violate NPOV. Just because we do not give undue weight to fringe theories does not mean that phrases such as that are suddenly NPOV. Please consider a more evenhanded way of writing. Kansan (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fringe views given undue weight, and other errors - agreed[change source]

The current state of this page is an embarrassment, appearing to have been written by a first year English student. The text of "Global Warming" should also include the fact that at any given time, the Earth is either cooling, or warming, and never stable. This has been true for eons, with or without the input from Man. That some people believe that Man actually possess the power to ever stabilize the climate of the Earth is outlandish at best, arrogant at worst. I doubt very much that these scientific facts will ultimately be included, and that is a shame.

Effects[change source]

I have removed a great deal of text from this section. There is a good deal of prediction, and emotion. The small amount of assertive facts, need to be sourced. I challenge those assertions and request sourcing on them. Thank you, Jon@talk:~$ 18:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"dust and dirt" section[change source]

I do not understand what this is trying to say. While simplification is good, sometimes stripping something completely of technical terms makes it prone to inaccuracy or incomprehensible to a wider audience. All I can gather is "People caused suspension of foreign particles in the air. Depending on size, particles stay in the atmosphere for varying lengths of time. This changes the temperature." What exactly is this "dust and dirt"? Soot? Aerosol particles? Debris from space missions suspended in our atmosphere? How did it get up there? Why do large dirt particles fall out- and what are they falling out of? Why exactly do foreign particles cause a change in temperature? Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, and apologies if I've caused misrepresentations in my recent edit; I'm way out of my depth here. sonia 08:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Neutral[change source]

Is this not Neutral. Scibaby (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section "The term global warming" uses too many difficult words[change source]

Do you agree? I am too lazy to rewrite it. Maybe it should just be taken out? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latest changes[change source]

Hello, I do not think that the latest change to the article was entirely beneficial. It seems to be pushing an agenda. I'm not saying it's all bad, but would other users also have a look so we can plan a course of action? --Yottie =talk= 13:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yottie: If there is still a problem could you explain please? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names of the pages?[change source]

Anyone interested in the names of this page and climate change please comment at Chidgk1 (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}}[change source]

I proved at that climate change is caused by a 12,000-year cycle of galatic interactions, so please revert the article to (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done because Wikipedia does not accept original research Chidgk1 (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chidgk1 It's not original research because I cited reliable sources. (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Words on Ogden word lists[change source]

By earlier decisions on this wiki, any words or word-forms in Ogden's word lists are deemed suitable for this wiki. It is not our intent to change good Simple English. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia:Basic English ordered wordlistReply[reply]

I changed "very" to "more" to change the meaning of the sentence Chidgk1 (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sheep[change source]


When you took out the sheep I added the other day you did not explain why in your change comment. If you wanted a cite then I think it would have been more polite to have tagged "citation needed" Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boreholes[change source]

@Chidgk1: I think the temperature measured in deep holes refers to this: Lights and freedom (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lights and freedom: I won't have much time for the next week or 2 - could you fix it by explaining it better? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]