Talk:2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference/Archive 1

Archive 1

Started Editing, Created Talk Page

Fellow Wikipedia Editors. I just created this talk page for our use. I made some modifications to the article that I found here:

1. added the logo and infograph
2. started to make the page look more like the 2011 page - for consistency
3. started to remove some of the usual POV laden commentary
4. added a current events banner to alert readers that the conference is ongoing and that the article might change rapidly

Help appreciated. Let's keep it NPOV and let's make it better!Justanonymous (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Participant Statements & Conference Activity

I lumped a bunch of statements under the Statements section modeled after what we had last year. I'm not sure these are relevant or necessary. A lot of different people say a lot of things during the course of the conference. They change their minds. A lot of things happen. I move that we remove or minimize the use of these POV comments and stick to the outcomes and major points. I'm not deleting for now but I might. Voice your thoughts or feel free to be bold.Justanonymous (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The statements section needs major rework. It seems that whomever had edited this page before does not understand how to cite properly. Some of the comments just have quotes without a reference to who made the statement. I'm considering removing some of these entries as superfluous.Justanonymous (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Carbon consumed

Guardian published in 2011 Consumption emissions including imported and exported goods. Would this not be the best measure to tackle the problem. Is it discussed? All contributing factors (aviation, building, land use, methane, population growth) should also be included and the country specific emission history considered not to allow free riders. Is this discussed? We can not expect China to stop using coal if we buy the coal products, can we? Watti Renew (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

great point. We do talk about challenges with agreeing on metrics in the politics of global warming page. I'm sure these topics are debated about this at the conference. If we get the details in an outcome of the conference we can add. I did note that some of the data sets were from 2001 and the article doesn't expose it's methodology and formulas so dont think we can back up the use. if we had a nature paper from a phd with the current data we might. This topic is very politically charged so we should exercise care and keep WP:NPOV strictly in mind. --Justanonymous (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I slept on it and was thinking about your charts on emissions that you mention here. I think we can add a section to the political economy of climate change page and Treat the topic There. I've been meaning to clean up that page up and I think this type content on metrics, if we can get it backed up solidly with a bit of research could live there.--Justanonymous (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Climate change science

Climate change science deserves place in the article. [1] Watti Renew (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No objections here but it should be short and only as context because this article is about the conference and UNFCCC process, it should be strictly NPOV - not activist, and point to the global warming page or global warming controversy page. I did go look at the historical entries and they do not have a climate science section though. For the last couple of years the pages have been rather consistent but they don't have a climate science section. the 2009 page appears to be a mess, a lot of hands in that conference and that yielded a disorganized article. We should try to clean that up. Overall, this conference is about climate change. If you want to put in a small paragraph on this topic matter linkint to global warming, that should be fine. Let's make it better.Justanonymous (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I do apologize Watti, there has been a lot of activism and POV laden spam injected into this article over the last few days which is making the article not flow the way it's supposed to. The commentary you added I read as POV and not complying with WP:NPOV. So I moved it to the comments section, which is a release valve for activists to put content into without disrupting the article. If we can get a more NPOV entry into the article that would be fine but it needs to be high level enough that the reader understands the breadth of the issue. Simply alerting them to the low Arctic ice levels in an alarmist way does not do the magnitude of the matter any justice especially in the main background section to the conference that is trying to address this problem at a global level - the comment was too small and narrow (in scope) for this very high level background section. We need to grab them with overall magnitude and give the reader the tools to go read further on our other pages. This is what you wrote in the main background section of the UN's biggest yearly climate change conference that I took to be too narrow in scope at the wrong level for the background and POV laden activism (sorry that was my off the cuff analysis when I read it - it was like someone throwing a tree over the train tracks of the article at that level).

Climate change has alarming signs worldwide. Ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are melting three times faster in 2012 than in the 1990s, according to definitive' study of satellite data.

— Between 2000-2011 carbon dioxide growth in the athmosphere was 20 % of the total since prehistoric level (391,57 ppm in 2011 and 369,52 ppm in 2000). The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has reached 391 ppm (parts per million) as of October 2012 The pre-industrial concentration was 280 ppm.

Do you want me to take a stab at adding something broader and NPOV or do you? I'm with you on describing the problem but it has to not disrupt the flow with the article which is about a conference not climate science, be NPOV, and give the reader a reference to go read further if they so wish. I sincerely want us to get your very important point across here in a way that adds to the article.Justanonymous (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Between 2000-2011 carbon dioxide growth in the athmosphere was 20 % of the total concentration growth since prehistoric level (391,57 ppm in 2011 and 369,52 ppm in 2000). The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has reached 391 ppm (parts per million) as of October 2012 The pre-industrial concentration was 280 ppm.

I fixed the quotation. There is additional scientific data of this available. Watti Renew (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

How about this:

The conference seeks to address the threat of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide. Between 2000-2011 carbon dioxide growth in the atmosphere was 20% of the total concentration growth since prehistoric level (391,57 ppm in 2011 and 369,52 ppm in 2000) The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has reached 391 ppm (parts per million) as of October 2012 versus the pre-industrial concentration was 280 ppm. which the consensus of world climate scientists agree is unsustainable.

I think this might be more comprehensive. I imagine someone else will show up and start wordsmithing it a bit but it's neutral enough as it is. I'll go ahead and insert it after the first sentence in the background and push the existing second sentence to the second paragraph for flow. I think that's where your statement should naturally live and there it won't interfere with the flow of the conference organization which is described right after the second paragrah. We'll see how it looks. Thank you for the help. Feel free to tweak and be bold as needed.Justanonymous (talk)

Thanks, in a hurry I point out that Global Carbon Project Carbon Budget 3.12.2012 estimated a 4-6 C temperature rise by 2099 and year 2011 CO2 emissions were 54 % higher than in 1990. Year 2012 rise was 2.6 %. Emissions of China are over 25 % of the world total. Watti Renew (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

References