Talk:Climate cycles

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article cleanup

Violates NPOV. I support AGW theory but this is too much. Currently cleaning up. --Scientist 19:02, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Brief rewrite completed. I'm going to adopt this page and attempt to improve it. I shall begin plotting some graphs of temperature over the past 400,000 years using data from Vostok. --Scientist 19:22, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Whoa, thank you, Scientist. It was pretty over the top before. Also a technical note, there is no NPOV policy here, but I think you did the right (heh, punny) thing here. HelpJazz 19:24, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
No problem. I'm going to add a few lines around the middle summarising what AGW theory says; I hope that it doesn't appear too liberal once it's done.
I may be a liberal but I know that Conservapedia is, obviously, dominated by conservatives.
--Scientist 19:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I forgot about Creationist beliefs, so I put in 'tens of thousands of years'. This has been edited by TK on the basis that this length of time cannot be proven.

This leaves me in a tricky situation regarding the graph. The data goes back 400k years going by the time-scale scientists believe; however, in 6,000 years there has not been even one full climate cycle.

Any idea what I should do now? I could remove the time-scale from the graph.

--Scientist 20:33, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Eh, I'm not really sure. The best thing to do would be to present the timescale as the opinion of some scientists, and not as fact, I guess. I didn't really expect that YEC would make arguing against AGW harder... TK, any suggestions? HelpJazz 10:32, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
I argue for AGW mainly, although I hope for a disproof.
However, I do get annoyed with alarmism and conspiracy theories on either side.
I now have to figure out who to ask to have the graph uploaded...
--Scientist 11:56, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
You are allowed to have viewpoints for different theories as long as they are not presented as fact. So personally I don't see a problem with a graph showing 400,000 years of history as long is there is a disclaimer somewhere in the article as to what theory proposes this time structure. Also, while the number of years may be interpreted differently, the idea of a time line from earliest to modern is common across theories. Learn together 13:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm thinking the second section should probably be removed with a "See Also: Global Warming" in it's place. The idea is to only have topic conservations/arguments take place in a single area, not be readdressed in differing forms in multiple locations. Just to warn you in advance that you may not like everything put forth in the Global Warming article (it appears to be a hot button topic), but it does already exist. Learn together 13:46, 27 September 2007 (EDT)