![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The last link - What is your carbon budget? - leads to something irrelevant. -- Peggy Brennan ( talk) 12:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
on the discussion page for Global warming, Nrcprm2026 stated yesterday: "Hey, and thanks for everyone's patience with the graphs. I felt very strongly that they were the best way to convey the information, but after finding the British Insurers' report, I've come to the opinion that text is really the way to go, at least until we get the 1999-2004 data.". contrary to this claim however, he continues to post, repost, repost again, his fatally flawed graphs. on the Global warming discussion page, the consensus has found essentially a dozen or more people pointing out the manifold flaws in his graphs, and Nrcprm2026 still relentlessly trying to defend them. except for the comment above. I maintain that the comment above should be considered canonical, and on that basis, all repostings of this graph should be reverted. Neither, at the same time, do i by that statement maintain that i think his graphs will have any probative value *after* adding the 1994-2004 data. the extrapolations accomplish nothing - besides huge amounts of wasted time 'discussing' all the problems with them. The *existing data is cautionary enough*. leave it at that. use the graph recently found at IPCC showing the trend. interesting that IPCC felt that showing current data alone was all that was necessary, without extrapolating out into wild fiction. Nrcprm2026 always cuts off the graph at some arbitrary date in the future, to tailor it to the legend he provides. how about this - extrapolate your graph out to 2100. show us what the costs will be then (likely several orders of magnitude higher than the GDP worldwide could ever possibly cover). enough of this nonsense. no more self-made graphs. use IPCC graphs and data, or other sourced, non-original-research data. Anastrophe 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This figure is still nonsensical, and I am removing it from both articles you have placed it in. Dragons flight 08:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Something that's been bothering me for a while involves the title of this article. I believe that "Action on climate change" is a poor title for the article, and it needs to be changed to something more concrete. What that better title should be, however, has so far eluded me. Thoughts? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion would be "Climate Change Response" Shaunjason 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Sustainable Community Action Wiki is collating similar information - SCA's Climate change portal - (opportunities for some sort of collaboration?) Would 'Civil society action groups' be a more generic (and so inclusive) subtitle than 'Protest and direct action groups'? Philralph 07:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
? Andycjp 05:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I added the dubious tag to this line: "Making various personal choices can be an effective method of fighting climate change" as I find it very unlikely to be true. One person's emissions are insignificant, calling cutting them an "effective method" is wrong. -- Theblog 05:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
this article reads like advocacy, not like an encyclopedia. it's filled with loaded phrases, and relative to the number of claims within the article, it has exceedingly few cites. i'm strongly inclined to slap 'fact' tags throughout the article (fact tagging at the top of articles tends to generate a big yawn unfortunately). the opening paragraph makes sweeping claims, with no verifiable references. frankly, i'm appalled. Anastrophe ( talk) 16:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I nominated this article to be checked for bias. To me this seems to be very POV. It promotes certain viewpoints and organiations and little encyclopedic coverage is done about the movement as a whole. Also, the external links violated just about everything in WP:EL so I went ahead and removed them. If there's any that really deserve to be here bring it up on this talk page. Thanks. Themfromspace ( talk) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I added info stating that Power Shift 2007 is a project of the Energy Action Coaltion. However there is no page for the Energy Action Coaltion or any of their other campaigns which they have run in the past such as Road to Detroit, Power Vote, or Campus Climate Challenge. There are numerous other campus and student level actions, organizations, and projects that should also be included such as Step it Up, and regional Power Shift conferences.
( Alevihnc ( talk) 23:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC))
The overall organization of this page is very convoluted and definitely not uniform, especially across countries. I would like to organize better by global initiatives, country initiatives, and then sub-country initiatives in a uniform way across countries. Australia has the most comprehensive entry currently, and it's subheadings are largely coherent with subheadings of
4.3 What's being done in Australia * 4.3.1 Local and State government in Australia o 4.3.1.1 State government of Victoria o 4.3.1.2 State government of Western Australia * 4.3.2 Youth Climate Movement o 4.3.2.1 Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) o 4.3.2.2 Australian Student Environment Network (ASEN) o 4.3.2.3 National campaigns [33] o 4.3.2.4 Students of Sustainability conference o 4.3.2.5 ASEN Training Camp * 4.3.3 Community organising * 4.3.4 Community engagement * 4.3.5 Legal action * 4.3.6 Movement building o 4.3.6.1 Coalitions and Alliances o 4.3.6.2 Key events * 4.3.7 Online organising * 4.3.8 Direct Action * 4.3.9 Policy advocacy * 4.3.10 Social justice groups
I think this is on the right track but believe that it should be refined to be formatted this way: 4.3 What is being done in Australia
4.3.1 Government Initiatives 4.3.1.1 National 4.3.1.2 State 4.3.1.3 Local 4.3.1.4 Regional Alliances and Coalitions 4.3.2 Corporate Initiatives 4.3.3 College and University Initiatives 4.3.4 Climate Advocacy 4.3.4.1 Climate Advocacy Organizations, Alliances, and Coalitions 4.3.4.1.1 National 4.3.4.1.2 State 4.3.4.1.3 Local 4.3.4.1.4 Regional 4.3.4.2 Organizing philosophies and techniques 4.3.4.2.1 Climate Policy Advocacy 4.3.4.2.2 Legal Action 4.3.4.2.3 Direct Actions and Protests 4.3.5 Youth Climate Movement 4.3.5.1 Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) 4.3.5.2 Australian Student Environment Network (ASEN) 4.3.5.3 National campaigns [33] 4.3.5.4 Students of Sustainability conference 4.3.5.5 ASEN Training Camp
I would then recommend using this outline for political action in all other countries. ( Alevihnc ( talk) 22:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC))
Upon further investigation, I have found that the political action and politics of global warming/climate change articles are much more convoluted than originally thought. The [politics of global warming] article and this entry are significantly redundant, but more importantly, don't provide clearly centered articles that follow any logical theme. I think it would be more clear if there was one page that outlines government and climate change and one that outlines the politics of global warming, and one that outlines individual-lifestyle changes. Some input on the best organization is needed. ( Alevihnc ( talk) 22:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
I've tried to reorganise the headings as best as I can. If anyone disagrees with the new organisation of it, please feel free to make your changes, but please try and keep it as simple as possible. Thanks! Flipper24 ( talk) 03:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Individual Action on Climate Change should be separated from Political Action on Climate Change.
( Alevihnc ( talk) 22:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC))
Agreed. It would enable to article to be much tidier and less voluminous, especially seeing how vast the differences are between governments and individuals. Flipper24 ( talk) 07:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The page was a mess. It did not deserve to be a B class article. I split out info to "Climate change in ... Japan, New Zealand, Australia, United States". I deleted info about Australian Youth Climate Change Council. It is not notable and links went to a blank blog. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 05:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Add File:Nested sustainability-v2.gif (below) from Sustainability to illustrate ... environmental, economic and social issues find common ground ...
99.181.146.135 ( talk) 02:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Disingenuous activity on Talk:Sustainability, User: Arthur Rubin? 99.181.135.0 ( talk) 04:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There are more opinions on Talk:Sustainability#File:Nested_sustainability-v2.gif. 108.73.113.97 ( talk) 00:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There is an increased awareness of the importance of global warming (the current climate change) as a factor in a range of issues. Many environmental, economic and social issues find common ground in mitigation of global warming. [1]
Add image ...
ref name = Ott>Ott, K. (2003). http://umwethik.botanik.uni-greifswald.de/booklet/8_strong_sustainability.pdf "The Case for Strong Sustainability." In: Ott, K. & P. Thapa (eds.) (2003).Greifswald’s Environmental Ethics. Greifswald: Steinbecker Verlag Ulrich Rose. ISBN 3931483320. Retrieved on: 2009-02-16. Scott Cato, M. (2009). Green Economics. London: Earthscan, pp. 142–150. ISBN 9781844075713. ref 99.181.152.17 ( talk) 03:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The last link - What is your carbon budget? - leads to something irrelevant. -- Peggy Brennan ( talk) 12:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
on the discussion page for Global warming, Nrcprm2026 stated yesterday: "Hey, and thanks for everyone's patience with the graphs. I felt very strongly that they were the best way to convey the information, but after finding the British Insurers' report, I've come to the opinion that text is really the way to go, at least until we get the 1999-2004 data.". contrary to this claim however, he continues to post, repost, repost again, his fatally flawed graphs. on the Global warming discussion page, the consensus has found essentially a dozen or more people pointing out the manifold flaws in his graphs, and Nrcprm2026 still relentlessly trying to defend them. except for the comment above. I maintain that the comment above should be considered canonical, and on that basis, all repostings of this graph should be reverted. Neither, at the same time, do i by that statement maintain that i think his graphs will have any probative value *after* adding the 1994-2004 data. the extrapolations accomplish nothing - besides huge amounts of wasted time 'discussing' all the problems with them. The *existing data is cautionary enough*. leave it at that. use the graph recently found at IPCC showing the trend. interesting that IPCC felt that showing current data alone was all that was necessary, without extrapolating out into wild fiction. Nrcprm2026 always cuts off the graph at some arbitrary date in the future, to tailor it to the legend he provides. how about this - extrapolate your graph out to 2100. show us what the costs will be then (likely several orders of magnitude higher than the GDP worldwide could ever possibly cover). enough of this nonsense. no more self-made graphs. use IPCC graphs and data, or other sourced, non-original-research data. Anastrophe 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This figure is still nonsensical, and I am removing it from both articles you have placed it in. Dragons flight 08:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Something that's been bothering me for a while involves the title of this article. I believe that "Action on climate change" is a poor title for the article, and it needs to be changed to something more concrete. What that better title should be, however, has so far eluded me. Thoughts? SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion would be "Climate Change Response" Shaunjason 16:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Sustainable Community Action Wiki is collating similar information - SCA's Climate change portal - (opportunities for some sort of collaboration?) Would 'Civil society action groups' be a more generic (and so inclusive) subtitle than 'Protest and direct action groups'? Philralph 07:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
? Andycjp 05:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I added the dubious tag to this line: "Making various personal choices can be an effective method of fighting climate change" as I find it very unlikely to be true. One person's emissions are insignificant, calling cutting them an "effective method" is wrong. -- Theblog 05:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
this article reads like advocacy, not like an encyclopedia. it's filled with loaded phrases, and relative to the number of claims within the article, it has exceedingly few cites. i'm strongly inclined to slap 'fact' tags throughout the article (fact tagging at the top of articles tends to generate a big yawn unfortunately). the opening paragraph makes sweeping claims, with no verifiable references. frankly, i'm appalled. Anastrophe ( talk) 16:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I nominated this article to be checked for bias. To me this seems to be very POV. It promotes certain viewpoints and organiations and little encyclopedic coverage is done about the movement as a whole. Also, the external links violated just about everything in WP:EL so I went ahead and removed them. If there's any that really deserve to be here bring it up on this talk page. Thanks. Themfromspace ( talk) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I added info stating that Power Shift 2007 is a project of the Energy Action Coaltion. However there is no page for the Energy Action Coaltion or any of their other campaigns which they have run in the past such as Road to Detroit, Power Vote, or Campus Climate Challenge. There are numerous other campus and student level actions, organizations, and projects that should also be included such as Step it Up, and regional Power Shift conferences.
( Alevihnc ( talk) 23:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC))
The overall organization of this page is very convoluted and definitely not uniform, especially across countries. I would like to organize better by global initiatives, country initiatives, and then sub-country initiatives in a uniform way across countries. Australia has the most comprehensive entry currently, and it's subheadings are largely coherent with subheadings of
4.3 What's being done in Australia * 4.3.1 Local and State government in Australia o 4.3.1.1 State government of Victoria o 4.3.1.2 State government of Western Australia * 4.3.2 Youth Climate Movement o 4.3.2.1 Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) o 4.3.2.2 Australian Student Environment Network (ASEN) o 4.3.2.3 National campaigns [33] o 4.3.2.4 Students of Sustainability conference o 4.3.2.5 ASEN Training Camp * 4.3.3 Community organising * 4.3.4 Community engagement * 4.3.5 Legal action * 4.3.6 Movement building o 4.3.6.1 Coalitions and Alliances o 4.3.6.2 Key events * 4.3.7 Online organising * 4.3.8 Direct Action * 4.3.9 Policy advocacy * 4.3.10 Social justice groups
I think this is on the right track but believe that it should be refined to be formatted this way: 4.3 What is being done in Australia
4.3.1 Government Initiatives 4.3.1.1 National 4.3.1.2 State 4.3.1.3 Local 4.3.1.4 Regional Alliances and Coalitions 4.3.2 Corporate Initiatives 4.3.3 College and University Initiatives 4.3.4 Climate Advocacy 4.3.4.1 Climate Advocacy Organizations, Alliances, and Coalitions 4.3.4.1.1 National 4.3.4.1.2 State 4.3.4.1.3 Local 4.3.4.1.4 Regional 4.3.4.2 Organizing philosophies and techniques 4.3.4.2.1 Climate Policy Advocacy 4.3.4.2.2 Legal Action 4.3.4.2.3 Direct Actions and Protests 4.3.5 Youth Climate Movement 4.3.5.1 Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) 4.3.5.2 Australian Student Environment Network (ASEN) 4.3.5.3 National campaigns [33] 4.3.5.4 Students of Sustainability conference 4.3.5.5 ASEN Training Camp
I would then recommend using this outline for political action in all other countries. ( Alevihnc ( talk) 22:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC))
Upon further investigation, I have found that the political action and politics of global warming/climate change articles are much more convoluted than originally thought. The [politics of global warming] article and this entry are significantly redundant, but more importantly, don't provide clearly centered articles that follow any logical theme. I think it would be more clear if there was one page that outlines government and climate change and one that outlines the politics of global warming, and one that outlines individual-lifestyle changes. Some input on the best organization is needed. ( Alevihnc ( talk) 22:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
I've tried to reorganise the headings as best as I can. If anyone disagrees with the new organisation of it, please feel free to make your changes, but please try and keep it as simple as possible. Thanks! Flipper24 ( talk) 03:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Individual Action on Climate Change should be separated from Political Action on Climate Change.
( Alevihnc ( talk) 22:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC))
Agreed. It would enable to article to be much tidier and less voluminous, especially seeing how vast the differences are between governments and individuals. Flipper24 ( talk) 07:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The page was a mess. It did not deserve to be a B class article. I split out info to "Climate change in ... Japan, New Zealand, Australia, United States". I deleted info about Australian Youth Climate Change Council. It is not notable and links went to a blank blog. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 05:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Add File:Nested sustainability-v2.gif (below) from Sustainability to illustrate ... environmental, economic and social issues find common ground ...
99.181.146.135 ( talk) 02:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Disingenuous activity on Talk:Sustainability, User: Arthur Rubin? 99.181.135.0 ( talk) 04:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There are more opinions on Talk:Sustainability#File:Nested_sustainability-v2.gif. 108.73.113.97 ( talk) 00:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There is an increased awareness of the importance of global warming (the current climate change) as a factor in a range of issues. Many environmental, economic and social issues find common ground in mitigation of global warming. [1]
Add image ...
ref name = Ott>Ott, K. (2003). http://umwethik.botanik.uni-greifswald.de/booklet/8_strong_sustainability.pdf "The Case for Strong Sustainability." In: Ott, K. & P. Thapa (eds.) (2003).Greifswald’s Environmental Ethics. Greifswald: Steinbecker Verlag Ulrich Rose. ISBN 3931483320. Retrieved on: 2009-02-16. Scott Cato, M. (2009). Green Economics. London: Earthscan, pp. 142–150. ISBN 9781844075713. ref 99.181.152.17 ( talk) 03:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)