Talk:Anthropogenic climate change

The cause

Anthropocene Global Warming is the cause of global earth temperature increases and is directly affected by humanity and it's decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.117.144.1 (talk) 06:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Global warming?

The article says "Anthropogenic climate change is climate change caused by human action, either direct or indirect. This is not restricted to global warming..." But surely this is covered by effects of global warming, if not actually within the common, if loose, usage of "global warming" to include more than just temperature changes? Either way, I would suggest a merger is in order. There is a possible case for renaming effects of global warming to anthropogenic climate change, but I do prefer the clarity of the former title and the avoidance of the "but isn't that the same as global warming?" reaction. Rd232 20:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Climate change (warming, cooling, etc.) can be caused by (i) events within human control (e.g., burning gasoline), or (ii) events not within human control (e.g., cyclic changes in the amount of energy output by the sun). This page is about the former. There is a debate going on over the extent to which the observed global warming is anthropogenic. This page could become an important resource for that debate. I hope that it is developed separately from the effects of global warming. --noösfractal 04:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur. The climate change wikiproject is coming nicely, eventually a separate article devoted exclusively to anthropogenic climate change could very conceivably be warranted as the other articles such as Attribution of recent climate change, Climate change#Human influences, Global warming#Causes of global warming, and Scientific opinion on climate change grow. Evolauxia 15:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-wrote the page to expand the subject, remove the stub pointer (for the time being), and correct a labeling mistake (there is no such thing as 'atmospheric albedo' in this context: what was probably intended is 'planetary albedo'). Does this fit the bill better? --Michel M Verstraete 21:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

I think this article should be merged into Climate change which already discusses both types, anthropogenic and natural, and is much more thorough. I could see an argument for splitting anthropogenic climate change into its own article if Climate change becomes too huge and unwieldy, but currently that is not the case. In the meantime, there's no need to duplicate material. --Nethgirb 17:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

POV fork?

Ironically, I had no idea of the existence of this article when I recently changed Anthropogenic global warming from a redirect back into a regular article. AGW was immediately subject to a vfd vote on the grounds that it was a WP:POV fork:

1. William gives no reason,
2. FM refers to his past allegations as if accusation equals truth but also gives no reason,
3. TeaDrinker at least explains his reasoning

But it it wasn't. It was an accidental WP:Content fork, just as this one is. --Uncle Ed 14:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame me, I made this a redirect. It should probably go back to that William M. Connolley 17:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, after the information in it is properly merged. I've put up a merge tag. --Uncle Ed 13:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like merging to Climate change is better than to Attribution of recent climate change: The latter is more specific than "Anthropogenic climate change" since it excludes, for example, discussion of historical anthropogenic climate change due to land use changes. And Climate change already has an "Anthropogenic" section. --Nethgirb 15:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no objection, I will merge to Climate change momentarily... --Nethgirb 16:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course there's no objection. It's not a "POV fork", i.e., a spinoff article which seeks to evade NPOV.

Actually, User:Daniel Collins and User:Michel M Verstraete worked on this together, among others. It's a model of neutral writing, and nobody has disputed its neutrality in Edit Summaries or here on the talk page. --Uncle Ed 17:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested that this article was a POV fork...just that it's redundant. --Nethgirb 18:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)