Talk:Anthropogenic global warming

1. REDIRECT Talk:Attribution of recent climate change

Change of redirect: why?

I don't see any discussion for this change [1]. It looks wrong to me William M. Connolley (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Especially in light of the AFD result, which I've just noticed... William M. Connolley (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• That AFD discussion was from 4 years ago. The attribution redirect deals very clearly with the "anthropogenic" aspect of AGW, and you shouldn't simply revert "per talk", when there was no discussion here supporting your revert. Thus, as I agree with the new redirect, and think it's much more specific and accurate, I'm replacing it. Please don't revert it without consensus. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's how it works - specifically, there was a long standing target for this redirect - one I agree with. If people are wondering "what is anthropogenic global warming," the article that best answers that question is our article on "global warming," not our article on "what causes global warming." Thus, I have restored the four year status quo - find consensus on this talk page before moving from the status quo. Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

One (the attribution article) deals with the "anthropogenic" aspect. The other (GW) doesn't touch that side of it. This is beyond the pale, Hipocrite. Stop citing "4 years of status quo" as a reason for redirecting it to GW. I don't even think the attribution article existed back then. Now it does, and it's a MUCH better redirect for AGW. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a better redirect for the "Anthropogenic" part, sure. However, people coming to this article have typed in "anthropogenic global warming." They should be directed to our article about "the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation," which is what "anthropogenic global warming" is. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? You really think that people who know enough to type "anthropogenic" in front of "global warming" are simply wanting to learn more about global warming?!? That seems patently absurd, as typing that qualifier makes it clear they are interested in the attribution of said phenomena. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

" Yes. They saw someone write it somewhere, and so they wikipediaed it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

AGW is just a synonym for GW. The attribution article is about something entirely different; in fact, it is about... yes, you guessed it: attribution. It isn't all that good, and definitely needs work. But it isn't the correct target for this redirect William M. Connolley (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's categorically not. There are many people who acknowledge that global warming is occurring, but who would vigorously debate the "anthropogenic" aspect of it. Let's not pretend otherwise here. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a very fringe view you've expressed - I believe you are providing undue weight to the fringe belief that global warming is not being caused by human activity. Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Absurd. The view that the amount of influence man has over GW is debatable isn't "fringey" in the least. And I didn't even express a view on it. I simply made the comment that people who know enough to type in "anthropogenic" would seem to be looking for material on attribution not on general global warming. Please stop with the absurd accusations. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I contend that the view man is not causing global warming is fringe. You state this is "absurd." Certainly, then, you can provide peer-reviewed review articles in reputable and on-topic journals that contend that man is not causing global warming, and at least one major scientific body that doubts that man is causing global warming. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)