Talk:Climate change in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge

This page should be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming_%28United_States%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacebrothereshi (talk • contribs) 02:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Climate change is more than just politics hence the reason for two separate pages (amongst other reasons). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this before. Active discussion, with the proper merge tags on the articles, is now at Talk:Politics of global warming (United States)#Climate change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion both Climate change in the United States and Politics of global warming (United States) deserves there places since the issue is large and there are equal articles of other countries: Effects of global warming on Australia, Effects of global warming on India, Climate change in Sweden, Climate change in Australia Watti Renew (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's room for three distinct articles; Politics of global warming (United States), Climate change in the United States, and effects of the United States on climate change. However, much of what is presently in climate change in the United States should be only in Politics of global warming (United States). Still, the discussion at Talk:Politics of global warming (United States)#Climate change seems to have led to a consensus that most of this article should not be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States is a start on Effects of the United States on climate change. 99.181.146.194 (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there is Category:Climate change by country, I consider Climate change in the United States as the main article. It is also stated as the main article. One may argue should it be: Category:Global warming by country and Global warming in the United States. It does not make any difference for me. The main article may include many subarticles. One of them is in my opinion now Politics of global warming (United States). The main article should include an overview and links to the more detailed articles. Anyone can start new more detailed articles, if the content is not considered better in the main article. Since this series is alredy long, this discussion, if relevant should be here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change/Climate change articles by country. In my opinion the merge tag can be removed now here. Watti Renew (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Resource

Expert: USA's extreme weather should raise questions Sep 05, 2011 by Melanie Eversley in the USA Today. Excerpt

There have been 10 major weather disasters this year, leaving more than 700 people dead and causing more than $35 billion in damage, The Guardian attributes to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

This year has seen three times as many weather-related disasters than what is typical, and NOAA expects summer 2011 figures - due to be released next week - will show the warmest summer on record, The Guardian reports.

"Not since the great heat waves of 1934 and 1936 has the U.S. seen so many heat-related records broken as occurred this summer," Christopher Burt, author of Extreme Weather: A Guide and Record Book, told The Guardian. "The back-to-back nature of the intensity of the past two summers should raise some interesting questions - questions I am not qualified to address." ... Among other phenomena:

• The Horn of Africa is experiencing its deepest drought in 60 years, and the situation is contributing to famine in Somalia.
• Earthquakes registering 6.2-magnitude and higher shook 14 countries in the first half of the year.
• The Arctic ice melt hit a record in July.

64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. However, does anyone have a theory which potentially connects climate change to earthquakes. If not, we need to remove that and anything referencing it in the body of the article, before attempting to use it as a reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a start ... A link between Japan’s earthquake and global warming? posted at 07:50 AM ET, 03/13/2011 by Stephen Stromberg in the Washington Post. 99.181.156.11 (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The results look like: if the global temperature rises 10 degrees, we might have 10% more earthquakes. Not enough correlation, except among the anti-science extremists on both sides, to mention earthquakes in the context of global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.livescience.com/7366-global-warming-spur-earthquakes-volcanoes.html on LiveScience ... water pressure, rebounding crust, ... such as Greenland ice sheet melt and Current sea level rise, Retreat of glaciers since 1850 (glaciers are heavy), and yet to come ... Climate of Antarctica and Antarctica#Effects_of_global_warming ... 99.181.149.240 (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not bad. Connects, but discredits the theory that this rapid global warming could cause earthquakes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Artificial political boundaries, global warming, and high fertility rates are worsening famine in the Horn of Africa. for example on Al Jazeera English 06 Aug 2011 by Jeffrey Sachs 99.19.43.188 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC) See 2011 East Africa drought.
• Climate change feedback example with anthropogenic component ... Unlocked by melting ice-caps, the great polar oil rush has begun; Trillions are at stake, and the ecological risks are equally huge by Michael McCarthy in The Independent 6 September 2011. For current news example, see Portal:Current_events/2011_August_31. 99.19.43.188 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Climate change in the Arctic 99.19.43.188 (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Newer USA Today Climate report links extreme weather events to global warming September 08, 2011 by Dan Vergano; excerpt ...

Hurricane Irene this year pushed the U.S. yearly record for billion-dollar natural disasters to 10, smashing the 2008 record of nine. In the "Current Extreme Weather and Climate Change" report, released today by the Climate Communication scientific group, leading climate scientists outlined how increasing global atmospheric temperatures and other climate change effects -- triggered by industrial emissions of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane -- are loading the dice for the sort of extreme weather seen this year. ... "Small increases in temperature set the stage for record breaking extreme temperature events." Overall, says the report, higher temperatures tied to global warming, about a one-degree global average temperature rise in the last century, have widely contributed to recent runs of horrible weather:

• In 1950, U.S. record breaking hot weather days were as likely as cold ones. By 2000, they were twice as likely, and in 2011 they are three times more likely, so far. By the end of the century they will be 50 times more likely, Meehl says.
• With global warming's higher temperatures packing about 4% more water into the atmosphere, total average U.S. snow and rainfall has increased by about 7% in the past century, says the study. The amount of rain falling in the heaviest 1% of cloudbursts has increased 20%, leading to more flooding.
• Early snow melt, and more rain rather than snow, has led to water cycle changes in the western U.S. in river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack from 1950 to 1999. The effects are up to 60% attributable to human influence.

Rather than totally triggering any extreme event, global warming just makes it worse, says meteorologist Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, a report reviewer. "A warmer atmosphere has more energy," he says, contributing to heat waves, tornadoes and other extremes. Even heavy blizzards come from an atmosphere packed with extra moisture by global warming he adds. "Years like 2011 may be the new normal."

The report notes scientific disagreement exists over the role of global warming in some severe weather events, such as hurricanes, or the frequency of El Niño weather patterns. "There's really no such thing as natural weather anymore," says climate scientist Donald Wuebbles of the University of Illinois, who was not involved with the report, but said he largely agreed with its conclusions. "Anything that takes place today in the weather system has been affected by the changes we've made to the climate system. That's just the background situation and it's good for people to know that," Wuebbles says. Although scientists cannot immediately tie what percentage of an extreme weather event relies on global warming to make it more severe, he says. "It's always a factor in today's world." Another outside climate scientist, Gavin Schmidt of Columbia University, said by email that public discussions of the role of climate change in extreme weather events, "oscillate between two equally unlikely extremes - that all weather events are caused by global warming or that global warming has no effect on weather at all." Too often, the discussion finally descends to name-calling ("alarmist" or "denier") between disagreeing sides, he adds:

The facts of the matter are this: the planet's climate has changed over the last 30 years, chiefly because of human activities."

99.119.130.203 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why was this section removed?

EPA's website provides information on climate change: EPA Climate Change. Climate change is a problem that is affecting people and the environment. Human-induced climate change has e.g. the potential to alter the prevalence and severity of extremes such as heat waves, cold waves, storms, floods and droughts.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

On that, I don't recall. If an editor without a history of adding inappropriate information were to add it, I might not revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

Added Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act regarding Talk:Climate change policy of the United States. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Subtracted; could probably be in link in Climate change policy of the United States, but not Climate change in the United States. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the cite. It is (1) almost accurate, (2) it only diverges from the source in that the text says it is 100% certain (which is my personal opinion too) but the source only says its 90-99% certain, and (3) I don't like the text due to over-simplicity and over-brevity, but that's just my style opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur Rubin and (97.87.29.188).Arthur Rubin. According to the history [1] you Arthur Rubin undid the revision since the source http://epa.gov/climatechange/ . doesn't support the section. You have partly correct. A part of the text is from the subpage: Extreme weather. In my opinion the source was well eneough marked. Do you want the subpage http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/extreme.html Extreme weather as an additional source? Watti Renew (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If it doesn't say its only >90% certain that humans are to blame then it will not comport with the source, and that will still be true no matter how the text or refs might be altered and improved. (And this is coming from an editor who tried to insert Lonnie Thompson's infamous "clear and present danger to civilization" bit in Global Warming. I think its 100% dead certain humans are doing it. But the inescapable reality is that the source only says its "very likely" and they use IPCC's meaning of that phrase which is ">90%" ( the source inaccurately quotes IPCC as saying its 90-99% certain, but IPCC AR4 says the phrase means ">90%", which of course would include the number 100... this is being talked about right now on the Global Warming talk page.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when I looked, I didn't see it in the source material at all. Adding the "extreme weather" page as a source would be helpful. On the other hand, wouldn't translating "very likely" in a EPA document as "> 90%" from IPCC, be synthesis? I think we would need the definition to be in an EPA document. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree the original article text just gave [[a homepage] for the reference and that's annoying. Arthur, it took me 30 seconds to confirm all of this info at the website, and <10sec to look up the human and very likely bit.... if you click the "science" button on the homepage, and then search that page for "human" the first hit you get has the phrase "very likely", and the definition of what % that means, complete with a citation to IPCC as the source for that info. So no, it most certainly is not a synthesis.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As a conclusion of the discussion I add the link to Extreme weather as a source, as supported. I do not add IPCC since the text is from the EPA page. Also since this is very general information, in my opinion, it does not need other sources. More detailed info you can read: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. :) Watti Renew (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Lest anyone misunderstand, I only said the deleted text ((is)) supported by the source. I did ((not)) say the deleted text made an important improvement to the article. It doesn't, because it's far too general, and amounts to a verbose link, even though most of the words were not in the url.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I see I'm commenting even as you are editing, so I'll retract this and comment later, if I feel inspired, after text has stabilized. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Resource maybe used in a variety of wp locations/topics ...

Temperature Rising; With Deaths of Forests, a Loss of Key Climate Protectors, by Justin Gillis published October 1, 2011 in NYT (starting on the frontpage, A1, in print), excerpt ... <remove excessive quotation, per WP:NFC> See 2011 Southern US drought, 2011 Texas wildfires, Tipping point (climatology), Effects of global warming, Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity (Climate change and agriculture, Climate change and ecosystems), Effects of global warming on Australia (Climate change in Australia), Amazon rainforest, Climate change policy of the United States, Changing Forests related graphic from article 99.190.85.170 (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

<remove excessive quotation, per WP:NFC; anon's response to my removal was to add twice as much additional> See Effects of climate change on marine mammals, Carbon cycle, Biogeochemical cycle, Planetary boundaries, Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, Climate change mitigation scenarios, Season creep, Land use, Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation, Climate change in California, Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, 99.190.85.170 (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.14.190 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.85.146 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.128.249 (talk)

Due to deleted quotation, see View History and Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin, here are some of the wikilinks removed: evergreens, pines, Rockies Southwestern United States, 2011 Texas wildfires, Colorado, aspen, euphorbia, Africa, Atlas cedar, Algeria, Siberia, Eucalyptus tree, Australia, Amazon, drought, habitability, Earth, Thomas W. Swetnam, University of Arizona, Arctic, Carnegie Institution for Science, human activities, ocean acidification, Carbon dioxide, Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere, fossil fuel, Industrial Revolution, Werner Kurz, United States Forest Service, Pine beetle, University of Montana, Steve Running, British Columbia, Wisconsin, mountain pine beetle, Alberta, water stress Yellowstone REDD California, China.

99.190.87.183 (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Resource on climate and food

• http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/335035/title/When_snowpack_shrinks%2C_elk_can_binge_on_aspen When snowpack shrinks, elk can binge on aspen

Grazers eat more young saplings, may harm vulnerable trees by Susan Milius on Science News. 99.109.127.58 (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Elk, indirect effect of climate change on plant biodiversity and climate change and agriculture ... 99.119.131.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC).

NYT resource

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/temperatures/ July Was the Fourth-Warmest on Record by Joanna M. Foster August 9, 2011, 12:05 PM "Results are in from the first stage of this summer’s heat wave, ... The nation’s average temperature was 77 degrees, almost 3 degrees above normal, and states like Oklahoma and Texas had the hottest July ever, with average temperatures of 88.9 and 87.1 respectively. Oklahoma’s statewide average temperature was the warmest for any state for any month on record. Temperatures in Dallas exceeded 100 degrees on 30 of the 31 days in July. Over all, 85.4 percent of states in the continental United States experienced July temperatures exceeding the long-term average. NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center maintains temperature records dating back to 1895." 99.35.15.107 (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Blogs are not a reliable source even those from newspapers. Also, climate change is about long term change not individual extreme weather events (although collectively they are part of climate change). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What of broad, longer-term events such as the 2011 Southern US drought, with related 2011 Texas wildfires for example? 99.109.126.95 (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is reliable sources making the link to climate change then all well and good. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Would this PolitiFact.com be helpful ... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/14/tim-pawlenty/do-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/ ?

Or this National Wildlife Federation one ... http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming/What-is-Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Causing-Extreme-Weather.aspx ?

The Joanna M. Foster article's keywords are "Science, climate change, Drought, Global Warming, heat, heat wave, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, temperatures" also. Climate is averages of smaller scale "weather". It is only matters of timescale.

Then there is TreeHugger's http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/why-was-july-2011-so-hot-across-the-us-explainer.html ...

USA Today excerpt ...

Heat waves stretching across states for many days are "consistent" with global warming projections made in the past decade, said climate scientist Norman Miller of the University of California-Berkeley.

from http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/extremes/2011-08-08-record-heat_n.htm

And another http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-08-10-climate-change-drought-heat_n.htm excerpt ...

While scientists caution that no individual extreme weather event can be conclusively linked to global warming, this summer is consistent with computer-model predictions of hotter days, warmer nights and more severe droughts.

Then there is this from Media Matters for America ... http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107200009 July 20, 2011 10:43 am ET by Shauna Theel 99.19.46.34 (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

resource

• The Science of Climate Change November 24, 2011 by Suzanne Presto for the Voice of America; excerpt ...

  "Since roughly the 1850s or so, we've seen an increase globally of about eight-tenths of a degree Celsius, so that's roughly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit," said Todd Sanford, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. ... Alden Meyer, the director of climate strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says global warming affects weather and water cycles. "You have increased flooding and extreme downpours combined with droughts and desertification in some regions of the world. So there's tremendous variability here, and we're seeing that with extreme weather events on the increase, not only here in the U.S. but around the world," Meyer said. ... "Last year saw the largest single increase in history to the largest emissions amounts," Sanford said.

Also quoted, Fred Singer

99.181.139.152 (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

coverpage NYT resource

Harsh Political Reality Slows Climate Studies Despite Extreme Year by Justin Gillis published NYTimes.com December 24, 2011. A version of this news analysis appeared in print on December 25, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Politics Slows Climate Study.

99.19.40.123 (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

WSJ misquote

The article states (1) there was record-breaking weather in 2011-2012, and (2) polls show public reaction to extreme weather led to increased belief in global warming. It does not make the connection, and we shouldn't, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Why were these items deleted?

• Public attention of the record-breaking warm winter in 2011-2012 increasing association of extreme weather with global warming.
• The U.S. had its warmest March-May on record in 2012.
• In Europe, the notion of human influence on climate gained wide acceptance more rapidly than in many other parts of the world, most notably the United States. There is growing awareness in the US, such as with 350.org[2] (based in the US) and the International Day of Climate Action.

99.181.159.79 (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

For the reasons stated in the edit summaries. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You appears to be assume a self-limited view of this article. The lede is

There is an international interest in issues surrounding global warming in the United States due to the U.S. position in world affairs and the U.S.'s high level of greenhouse gas emissions per capita.

Your comments make unfounded assumptions. 99.181.142.87 (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Does that translate to climate change denial? 99.109.124.95 (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See March 2012 North American heat wave, which continues into Summer 2012 North American heat wave (see related 2010–2012 Southern United States drought continuing into 2012 North American drought, with related events such as June 2012 North American derecho and 2012 Colorado wildfires with conditions were favorable for wildfires. See Talk:Effects of global warming (extreme events of "extreme weather", increased fires from drought) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.195.138.75 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Droughts

The article said that there has been, broadly speaking, no increase in drought in the United States in the past decades. That's what it said. There is no OR, no SYNTH, and no other issues. Read the article. The only reason for not including this would be from an undue weight perspective, but there's no article brought to my attention that would say that this article is out of the mainstream science. For Christ's sake, it was published in Geophysical Research Letters. That's not 'fringe science'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeWithMarkets (talk • contribs)

The pre-existing sentence that I tagged with CN? That should get replaced with a some RSs on the projections of increasing extent/frequency/severity of drought punctuated by deluges. The study you found would fit nicely after that to show how things are shaping up thus far but leave out the word "however" which can suggest negation of whatever went before it. Use of the "however" is the basis of my SYNTH assertion. In addition, when this RS is mentioned, we should also cover the rest of the findings, e.g., that drought has in fact increased in the W/SW although not for the country overall as you say. On the flip side, there's a study out showing increasing frequency/severity of central US deluges. That ties in here too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I added the study about drought back with the 'However' taken out, so there's no synth. I'll cite the thing about the southwest being different in the rest of the country when I see a citation about that specifically (if you have one, please add it). As for the issue of deluges and overly wet periods, that may be a regional problem for the Midwest but it's not an issue for the country as a whole as per the EPA's information. Climate change for the U.S. as a whole has meant neither more drought nor more wet periods according to many sources (of course, this does not mean one does not have concerns / interesting findinds about climate changes for specific sub-reigions).

Dry and wet U.S. conditions.

Of course, if you want to add something like "Research reported in March 2013 found that the U.S. midwest has ___" that would make perfect sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you only joined us in October last year and have less than 500 edits. Will you accept some advice?

First when you revert, just revert. Then, if you want to change something, do that in another edit. I have put your text back where you had it the first time.

Second, you are required to discuss to try to reach a consensus. If you give that your best shot but can't make hay, then you're supposed to turn to our dispute resoultion process. Your not justified in cutting short the discuss part of BRD and just restoring your text in short order.

Third, on the content itself, sure I have source for increased drought in the SW - the very RS you added! Note that the abstract (url here) says "Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century. The main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where, notwithstanding increased precipitation (and in some cases increased soil moisture and runoff), increased temperature has led to trends in drought characteristics that are mostly opposite to those for the rest of the country especially in the case of drought duration and severity, which have increased."

Fourth, yep, I could add this material to fix your cherrypicking. For now I'll choose to assume your cherrypicking was in good faith. But your text still gives a false impression of this study's results, because you've omitted some very key information, especially to the folks that depend on moisture in that part of the country. So instead of fixing the cherrypicking myself, I'm attempting - right or wrong - to mentor a relative newbie who appears to be interested in this subject area and may not be privvy to the particulars of our policy about neutral points of view. Please add the bit about the SW & interior West's increased drought severity and duration and all will be good.

If at any time you're unhappy with me, and talk pages don't fix it, then please proceed to WP:DR. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I already responded on my talk page a bit, but I should also respond here. I see from your words, your actions, and your past editing history in particular that you have a negative reputation as an edit warrior prone to personal attacks. That's unfortunate. But then the nature of the site is such that prehaps you will mellow out or change to more NPOV actions in the future. Anyways, for the article as of now, the specific subsections appear balanced to me, though I know that you may revert it without explanation at some point.

As for the rest of the section, it does give an inaccurate view of climate change as per the facts right now. Hurricanes in terms of number and storm strength have no decreased in the U.S. Wet periods have not decreased. Tornadoes have no increased. Droughts have not decreased. Deaths from heat waves, cold waves, and storm-related issues have actually significantly declined. This is all easily looked up. Of course, how exactly to expand the section is certainly something that is messy since, of course, the factual predictions of all these things increasing in the future (though they're not doing so now). It's perfectly logical that drastic warming (maybe of the 4-degrees C level or such) would do that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Corruption

The Guardian wrote that iIn 2012 members of US Congress received more than $34m from oil, gas and coal companies – money to ensure they do nothing on climate change. [3] Is it not so that when a congressman have received funds from the oil industry she/he is unqualified to take part in any climate change discussion and voting in the congress? Watti Renew (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The source is obviously an editorial or essay, and doesn't support the statement made. Furthermore, even if the article were reliable and correct, your second sentence is absurd. However, this (at least on the face) is related to improvements in the article, even if it would really only be appropriate in the subarticle on political action on climate change in the United States. Hence, it's staying on the talk page, unlike your other essays which were quite properly removed from this talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

water distribution and its relation to tectonic plate

so we all no there are tectonic plates and a general idea of how they work. my idea is that if the oceans are rising then the it would put more presher on them. there for we will see more consistent earthquakes along the more active folt lines sech as the ring of fire.along with more volcano erupting also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance entze (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM. Vsmith (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Industry / private energy price

Industry pays in many countries less from energy than private persons. Also in the USA? How is this argumented? As I see it the more one use energy the higher the price pro kW should be. Industry support should not promote large use of energy but rather high domestic employment. According to Polluter pays principle industry should pay not only higher energy price but also pay the environmental and material long term damages high energy use has caused. Has this been considered in the United States? Watti Renew (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. Vsmith (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I discussed the article content and issues that could be included in the article: electricity pricing and promotion of energy saving i.e. Energy conservation in the United States Watti Renew (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I agree with Vsmith. Either it goes in with WP:RS or it can't be considered. Discussion here about what the "arguments are" is irrelevant. Student7 (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Climate change in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090313100709/http://www.middlebury.edu:80/about/pubaff/news_releases/2007/pubaff_633141333185905594.htm to http://www.middlebury.edu/about/pubaff/news_releases/2007/pubaff_633141333185905594.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Climate change in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090622110623/http://powershift07.org:80/about to http://powershift07.org/about

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Climate change in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920174308/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk:80/media/4/3/Executive_Summary.pdf to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/4/3/Executive_Summary.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110915034725/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange//effects/extreme.html to http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/extreme.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110915154830/http://downloads.climatescience.gov:80/sap/sap3-3/sap3-3-final-all.pdf to http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap3-3/sap3-3-final-all.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017191531/http://climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/Brochure-CCSP-3-3.pdf to http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/Brochure-CCSP-3-3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727011403/https://www.carbon-financeonline.com/index.cfm?section=features&id=11092&action=view&return=home to http://www.carbon-financeonline.com/index.cfm?section=features&id=11092&action=view&return=home
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509044529/http://www.globalchange.gov/resources/reports to http://www.globalchange.gov/resources/reports
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529090753/http://www.energy.ca.gov/global_climate_change/04-CCAC-1_advisory_committee/documents/2004-10-07_meeting/2004-10-07_BROWN_SUSAN.PDF to http://www.energy.ca.gov/global_climate_change/04-CCAC-1_advisory_committee/documents/2004-10-07_meeting/2004-10-07_BROWN_SUSAN.PDF
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hydropower.id.doe.gov/resourceassessment/index_states.shtml?id=wy&nam=Wyoming
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130214502/http://www.nextgenerationearth.org:80/contents/view/40 to http://www.nextgenerationearth.org/contents/view/40

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Climate change in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915230825/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406025335/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017895407_climate03.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017895407_climate03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212054358/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/14/bush.global.warming/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/14/bush.global.warming/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113033838/http://www.bnd.com/2014/01/09/2996864/scientists-americans-are-becoming.html to http://www.bnd.com/2014/01/09/2996864/scientists-americans-are-becoming.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424122332/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003732690_carbon03.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003732690_carbon03.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nextgenerationearth.org/contents/view/40

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Report: Climate change behind rise in weather disasters

• Report: Climate change behind rise in weather disasters October 10. 2012

Why was this not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.26.202.234 (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC) What kind of weather disasters?C3law (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)c3law(talk)20:35, 8 November 2017(UTC).

Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

All of the links are still working properly. There are no close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article. For more information about the topic, many cited hyperlinks are povided.C3law (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)c3law(talk) 21:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC).

Updated about the carbon dioxide emission reduction?

For all of the carbon dioxide emission reduction commitment that signed by President Barack Obama, they has been all removed by President Donald Trump at January of 2017. President Donald Trump states that the theory of global warming was created by China and turn United States manufacturing become non competitive. Therefore, he removed all climate change monitoring system and policy.C3law (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)c3law(talk) 21:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC).

The EPA climate change website is no longer exist?

In "Current and potential effects of climate change in the United States," it talks about that the website of EPA Climate Change can provide information of climate change in the United States and how climate changes affect people and environment. However, according to Trump administration, they has already removed the EPA climate webpage on January of 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C3law (talk • contribs) 05:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Is anything missing that could be added?

For the topic of "Climate Change in the United States, I think author should include the situation of all 50 states and give more detail of changes. Also, in the part of current and potential of climate change, I think author should talk more about on drought and sea level rise. C3law (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)c3law(talk)21:40, 8 November 2017(UTC).

I agree that it would be beneficial to include information regarding climate change in all 50 states. Also, regarding the "Climate change by states" section, the information for Colorado and Florida is lacking compared to some of the other states mentioned and I think they could be expanded upon because they are currently one sentence each. Shislegm (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed sections from recent "ENERGY" section

Hello! I'm removing some section from the recently added "ENERGY" section. I'm removing some things that don't seem fall into the scope of the article. That is, talking about the general nature of coal power or the general benefits of wind power don't necessarily have a place in this particular article (though they may add to the conversation elsewhere). @Matt Patronski:, please consider looking at the Wp:detail section. And thank you for adding so much!

I'll put the removed sections here:

Wind Turbines not only impact the nation on a large scale, but they do so on a small scale as well . Wind Turbines can satisfy much of a town or cities needs, which in turn benefits the citizens with lower cost energy consumption and ranchers who lease their land . The utilization of Wind Turbines also benefits the economy of a town on a small scale with tax breaks . The Wind Turbines not only power towns or cities, but they also allow the owner to provide power for sale to other jurisdictions . Also, it is important to point out that small-scale wind power can be created close to where it is being used . Generating electricity via wind does not produce any greenhouse gases, which is theoretically an important step in the battle on climate change .

Solar panel users assert that the technology is cost worthy because it allows them to produce their own electrical power . Solar panels in the age of climate change are another form of renewable energy . First, solar energy reduces water pollution . In plants such as natural gas or coal plants, this requires cooling, which in turn requires a large amount of water . With that being said, 72 percent of water pollution comes from plants such as coal-fired plants, and the toxic pollutants that are found in the water are linked to serious health problems . Generating energy from renewable energy sources such as the solar panel could improve health problems, and the wellbeing of ecosystems on a small scale or even a big scale . Solar panels do not pollute water sources, because the solar photovoltaic cells do not need water in order to generate, which results in clean drinking water .

Second, solar energy reduces air pollution . Solar panel users assert that the panels protect the environment by reducing the demand on natural gas and coal burning power plants . Advocates view the usage of solar panels as a positive fossil fuel alternative along with being a money saver on electrical bills for individuals .

Solar power does not rely on fuel to generate electricity in order for it to get running, which in turn eliminates the problem of radioactive waste and transportation of fuel .

Hydraulic fracking, which is commonly known as ‘fracking’ is a method that is used in order to extract oil or natural gas that is stored deep underground . Supporters of fracking insist that the technique is a safe economically smart approach for clean energy, however critics believe that the technique pollutes drinking water, triggers earthquakes, pollutes the air with greenhouse gases, and dangerously triggers earthquakes . The procedure of fracking starts with first, drilling a hole vertically or at an angle of about 1 to 2 miles deep . The perimeter of the drilled hole is then covered in steel or cement, this is to make sure that the well does not leak and contaminate any drinking water . Once the well or ‘hole’ reaches the particular rock that the oil and or natural gas exists, the well curves to around 90 degrees and then subsequently starts the drilling process at a horizontal angle .

Upon the well being drilled, fracking fluid called slickwater is pumped in . Slickwater is majority water, but it also consists of chemicals that include salts, acids, alcohols, lubricants, etc. . Once the rock is completely shattered by proppants (sand and pieces of ceramic) which are used to clear out the fractures, in order for the gas and oil to run smoothly through the rock fractures . Once everything is shattered and pumped into place, the trapped holdings of gas and oil are released and pumped back up to the surface of the well . However, upon bringing the trapped holdings back up to the surface, the liquid that is brought back up is filled with contaminants . The contaminants include different types of heavy metals, radioactive material, along with other toxins . Also, the pressure is powerful enough to fracture the surrounding rock, creating fissures and cracks through which oil and gas can flow .

Critics of fracking argue that the drilling and extraction causes air pollution, contamination of groundwater and surface water, along with other health, social and geographical issues . Fracking can cause a wide array of other social and health issues as well including workers being exposed to toxic chemicals, excessive use of water, and a risk to wildlife . Workers at fracking sites are at an elevated risk of having health issues due to the breathing in of toxic chemicals . Benzene is a well-known cancer risk chemical that is increasing health risks towards people working at the sites. . Benzene is well apparent in the fracking process, which in turn means that the chemical benzene could possibly make its way into drinking water for human consumption . The other effect of fracking is the excessive use of water . Fracking uses a tremendous amount of water that can possibly be the same source used for agriculture or farming, bathing, and drinking . This reduction of water can affect ecosystems and areas where water is low in demand . The last point is the risk to wildlife . Spillage of fluids in the fracking process contaminate various wildlife water sources like rivers, streams and ponds . These chemicals that are found in the fracking fluids can affect animals’ reproduction, if exposed . These chemicals not only affect animals but in turn they also affect humans .

The two main disadvantages of the use of coal are the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and the dangers that are apparent upon the process of extraction . The burning of coal and other fossil fuels into the environment releases carbon dioxide into the environment, which in turn warms the Earths atmosphere contributing to global climate change, which include the disappearance of glaciers, rising of sea levels, and changing in weather patterns . Coal-fired power plants are the leading contributor to mercury pollution .

The extraction process of coal can be dangerous because of the environmental consequence of acidification of streams, which can affect humans and wildlife . The emissions that are given off from the coal powered plants are linked to various health issues including asthma and lung cancer . Lastly, coal energy destroys natural habitats and leads to deadly consequences from environmental toxins . Coal mining requires digging, which in turn destroys natural habitats that can eventually lead to the pollution of the ground water . Carbon, when dissolved is highly acidic, and this can add toxins to the groundwater tables . Ingestion of this highly acidic chemical along with others like sulfur dioxide and mercury can create serious health concerns like black lung disease and even death .

Jlevi (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

More:

Energy consumption is a leading cause of climate change, and modifying energy consumption patterns is a crucial step in slowing climate change Renewable sources such as wind turbines or a solar panels cause less environmental damage than fracking, or coal.

One fifth of the nation’s power comes from renewable sources. When speaking about renewable energy and climate change, wind power is an increasing source of renewable energy. Wind power has become the United States fastest growing energy source. Wind produces around two percent of electricity nationwide.

The cost of installing a commercial or residential solar energy system has declined tremendously over the years because of the Obama Administration. 31 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. come from the production of electricity.

The United States, Federal subsidies are boosting consumers liking towards solar panels. In December of 2015, Congress extended the solar tax credits which in turn allowed individuals along with businesses in the United States to deduct 30 percent of the cost of a solar system in their house or business from their federal tax bill. The drop-in price of solar energy is boosting the interest of individuals and companies to invest.

References

Article needs a lot of updating

For example economics new info https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/01/new-study-finds-incredibly-high-carbon-pollution-costs-especially-for-the-us-and-india — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Good article! Here are some notes from it that could be incorporated here or elsewhere:

Obama admin set "federal social cost" of CO2 at $37 per ton

Recent research has set the true social cost at closer to $200 per ton, in large part because climate change slows economic growth

a 2015 poll of economists indicates that most believe the $37/ton estimate was too low.

Republicans are trying (tried and did ?) to reduce the federal guideline anyway

A 2018 study by UC San Diego's Ricke, published in Nature Climate Change, estimates the GLOBAL social cost to be between $177 and $805 per ton, most likely $417. It estimates the US cost at $50/ton, the second-highest national cost behind India's $90/ton

So the study argues that the global cost is 10x the Obama-era federal cost

"The idea was to combine an approach to analyzing the climate effect of a marginal emission of carbon dioxide that Ken Caldeira and I had recently developed, with a climate damages model described in what was then a working paper by Marshall Burke and collaborators. My co-author Massimo Tavoni pointed out that by combining these two tools, we could produce the first comprehensive, country-level estimates of the social cost of carbon." --the author

A relationship exists between a country's temperature and per-capita GDP, with a "sweet spot" at 55F.

The US is very close to the "sweet spot" temperature, while other countries like Canada and parts of the EU could benefit from some warming

Though China has a similar occupation of the "sweet spot," it is less likely to be affected as strongly by climate change because it is growing so quickly. Its social cost is $26/ton

Developing countries are disproportionately impacted by climate change

However, the US is highly impacted because it has one of the highest GDPs, and so it has the most to lose, compounded with the fact that it could easily be dislodged from the "sweet spot"

A Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond paper argues that the US should be willing to use a $40/ton carbon fee based upon local impacts

Jlevi (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Big edit of the "Current and potential effects of climate change in the United States" section.

Hey all. I'm doing a big edit of the Current and potential effects of climate change in the United States section of the article. It has many limitations right now, and I'm trying to do the following:

1. Update references. Many of the sources are from around 2010, and some from as early as 2005-07. Given the pace of change in the field, I think a lot of this can probably be updated and removed.

2. Organize. Right now this section feels like a list of unconnected facts. I think it can be easily re-organized into sections.

3. Combine and reduce. A lot of material could be combined and cut down; there's a lot of excess and redundancy right now in this section.

4. Merge this section with Climate change in the United States#Cost and consequences? It feels like the effects of climate change and the costs of the effects of climate change could be stated in the same section, and that the latter is (at least somewhat) redundant.

Please feel free to take a look at and improve my edits over at User:Jlevi/Climate Change in the United States: Current and Potential. I expect to finish up my first draft in a week or so. I'm playing with this in my user space to make it easier for me to do big edits that may mess up the page temporarily. Please contribute!

Jlevi (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Basic modification done. Jlevi (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Archived "Our changing planet" section

This section entirely lacks secondary sources, and the vast majority lacks page references or other details to support verifiability. A quick look through a few major reporting platforms did not turn up anything more than passing references for "Our changing planet report" or similar queries (NYT, reuters, AP news). I will continue looking for more information.

The report follows:

Since 1989, the U.S. Global Change Research Program has issued Our Changing Planet, an annual report summarizing "recent achievements, near term plans, and progress in implementing long term goals." The report for fiscal year 2010 was issued on October 28, 2009.

Measurement and modeling of climate systems have both improved dramatically in the last three decades, with measurements providing the hard data to calibrate the simulations, which in turn lead to improved understanding of the various systems and feedbacks and indicate areas where more and more detailed observations are needed. Recent developments in ensemble methods have improved understanding of and reduced uncertainty in hydrologic forcing by incoming radiation, particularly in areas with a complex topology. Multiple complementary model-validated proxy reconstructions indicate that recent warmth in the northern hemisphere is anomalous over at least the last 1300 years; using tree ring data, this conclusion can be extended somewhat less certainly to at least 1700 years. Improved measurement and analysis techniques have reconciled certain discrepancies between observed and projected trends in tropical surface and tropospheric temperatures: corrected buoy and satellite surface temperatures are slightly cooler and corrected satellite and radiosonde measurements of the tropical troposphere are slightly warmer.

Various forcing factors, including greenhouse gases, land cover change, volcanoes, air pollution and aerosols, and solar variability, have far ranging effects throughout the coupled ocean-atmosphere-land climate system. In the short term, effects from ozone, black carbon, organic carbon, and sulfate on radiative forcing are predicted to nearly cancel, but long-term projections of changing emissions patterns indicate that the warming effect of black carbon will outweigh the cooling effect of sulphates. By 2100, the projected global average increase to radiative forcing is approximately 1 W/m².

Human activities influence climate and related systems through, among other mechanisms, land usage, water management, and earlier and more significant melting of snow cover due to greenhouse-effect warming. In the southwestern United States, 60% of climate-related trends in river flow, winter air temperature, and snowpack between 1950 and 1999 were induced by humans. In this region, conversion of abandoned farmland to pine forests is projected to have a slight surface cooling effect, with evapotranspiration outweighing decreased albedo.

Jlevi (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming (NYT, Revkin, 2005)

Rick Piltz Dies at 71; Quit Bush White House Over Climate Policy (NYT, Martin, 2014) brief mention of the 2002 draft report

Nothing from the Associated Press. Hard to search on Reuters, but nothing found yet.

Yeah, so not much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlevi (talk • contribs) 02:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Removed comments on U.S. Global Change Research Program

I'm removing some details from the "Current and potential effects of climate change in the United States: Human effects: health, economy and agriculture" due to 1) lack of relevance to the particular section as well as 2) lack of specifics and 3) lack of secondary sources (this is about a particular report).

The removed sentences follow:

A separate 2014 assessment by the Risky Business Project focused on the economic risks from climate change on the U.S.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program conducted an assessment of ways in which climate affects health in the United States in 2016, including temperature-related deaths, air quality impacts, extreme events, vector-borne diseases, water-related illness, food safety, and mental health.

The fact that these reports exist could probably be introduced in the policy section if secondary sources exist about them because they are government project. Jlevi (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Environmental Racism

Hi! To whom it may concern: I am planning on adding some information to the environmental racism subheading to give more examples of it within the United States, mainly based on studies out of California. Kcl55 (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Great! Go for it. If you ever want to discuss additional sourcing or copy-editing, feel free to give me a shout. Thanks for adding to the page. Jlevi (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Under the 'Environmental Racism' topic, clarification is needed. What does BIPOC or SES stand for? Mmccoy2020 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Planned changes to headings and structure

I plan to change the headings and structure of this article to be in line with the template that has been proposed here for all articles of the nature "Climate change in Country X": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide (see also discussion on that page's talk page). Anyone has any objections? EMsmile (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeing no objections in the past 12 days, I will go ahead and begin implementing the recommended Headings and Subheadings. I will do this slowly, to give any active editors for this page a chance to comment. My plan is to revise the Headings first, before changing the sequencing of information. Please go to the link for WikiProject Climate Change Style Guide (in above comment) to see how these country-based articles are evolving.PlanetCare (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree and will help with this. I will try to implement this also to the page Climate change in China. In my opinion in the climate field USA and China are the most important countries, so it should begun with them.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

New content re impacts on indigenous peoples

The 9 Dec 2021 addition (diff) has major issues with WP:NPOV and WP:SYN, both with its language here and with its sourcing. I brought up some of the issues with the apparently-new editor at his talk page User talk:Abhurley that day, with no response. Upon examining the content in greater detail today, I've become even more convinced, and removed material that is apparently unsourced, or of the "I'm lecturing you" variety ("this is but one example..."), or "... it has been suggested", or who "....might have something to say"—all of which are inappropriate in an encyclopedia.

It's the place of an encyclopedia to present the facts from reliable sources, without editorial synthesis or personal interpretation or lecturing, so readers can draw their conclusions (opinions of established experts or clearly peer-reviewed papers can be presented in context). The massive 9 Dec 2021 addition has not done this. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Hobomok for making some improvements. However, the remaining text should be limited to describing the impacts of climate change, and not on the politics thought to cause those impacts. Mentioning political causation hurts the credibility of the article and its content. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

While I do agree with you that a lot of the additions could be edited so that they read more encyclopedically, the majority of the sources that are cited come from established environmental experts and detail how climate change has impacted Indigenous peoples in the United States over centuries. On this page especially, when discussing the examples of impacts outlined by User:Abhurley in Hawai'i, Alaska, and the Great Lakes, it is important, I think, to put those impacts in historical context of climate change's impacts in the United States. It seems to me that what is represented here is what is reflected in scholarship on/by Indigenous peoples, which is the nature of this section of the page.--Hobomok (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hobomok: In an article about climate change, the mere mention of "theft of land" and reference to a source with a title "Colonial Theft" and "Kleptocene" are simply not acceptable. They're clearly biased in tone, even if not in substance. That may be why you are forced to rely on "scholarship on/by Indigenous peoples, which is the nature of this section of the page". Separately, your earlier edit comment says edgeeffects.net is a "Popular academic magazine through a reputable university"—but being "popular academic" does not make the reference reliable, possibly why that website has only been cited a single time on Wikipedia and that, as "Additional reading" in Hiram Rhodes Revels! And https://www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/rps/ in no way suggests peer review. Clean-up of this article needs to be stronger. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

We may get other opinions at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if needed. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@RCraig09: Let me first start by saying I am not trying to make this into a contentious discussion. That said, I'll point out a few things here:

1. I would suggest reading the source in question before deciding that your perceived biases disqualify its research from being applicable to a page. Simply deciding that something doesn't belong because it concerns colonization and theft is, in my mind, bad practice. I'm also confused as to how discussing colonial theft of anything denotes any kind of bias?

2. When I say "popular," I do not mean the attention that a source receives. I mean it as in a popular publication vs an academic publication, as in a piece of writing by an academic, concerning an academic topic, but written so that it is accessible to a public audience outside of academia (https://libguides.geneseo.edu/scholarlyvspopular#:~:text=What%20Is%20a%20Popular%20Source,writers%20for%20a%20general%20audience). A popular publication as in a news source written for the general public. This one is a popular scholarly publication in that manner, and most articles in it are written by academics, which, I'd argue, makes it more reliable than popular sources cited on this page, like High Country News, for example, which is definitely reliable, but its articles are written by journalists as opposed to academics. An example of a questionable source, in my mind, would be The Rising, which is featured on the page. In the same vein as Edge Effects, The Conversation (website), for example, is a popular academic source as well, and it is trustworthy, much like Edge Effects is. I do not mean to be pedantic in this explanation. I only want to be clear in what I mean so that there is no confusion.

The magazine in question has also been cited multiple times across Wikipedia. Take, for example, these two sources about the Plantationocene, one an interview with Donna Haraway and Anna Tsing, each of whom I'd consider experts, or this article by Rob Nixon, whom I'd also consider an expert.

3. I'm not sure what you mean by "That may be why you are forced to rely on 'scholarship on/by Indigenous peoples ..." That's where reliable information about Impacts on Indigenous Peoples is going to come from, so of course that is the scholarship that should be cited in this section. The SSRN sources you're calling into question, written by Kyle Powys Whyte (again, an expert in this field if there ever was one) were cited incorrectly by the user who added this information. I've cleaned up those links, as one comes from the Routledge Companion to the Environmental Humanities, and the other from the book Humanities for the Environment, edited by Joni Adamson. It's on SSRN because Whyte makes all of his articles publicly available.

Each of these sources is reputable. You simply deciding that the Whyte articles are not reliable because they were cited incorrectly, rather than looking at the author or the content of the articles themselves gives me pause regarding the claimed biases of other pieces cited here.--Hobomok (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

My main point, again, is that the politics asserted to underlie climate change, have no bearing on the impacts of climate change. The term "theft" is still in the second sentence of this massive post, rather than in the first sentence: not a big improvement. Separately, the non-neutral term "environmental crisis" is still in the first sentence; note the difference between Climate crisis which Wikipedia limits as a subjective characterization versus Climate change which is a neutral descriptive term. The very first sentence continues to rely on the "kleptocene" reference written by Kyle Keeler as an essay (!) in edgeeffects.net (link: "Kyle Keeler^who? proposes a new title: the Kleptocene" over anthropocene.).

Note further that Climate change is the global phenomenon as distinguished from localized (mis)use of resources. Much of the rhetoric here is off-topic for this article.

Obviously, incorrect citations aren't the (only) problem here. We are having the above problems in the first two sentences alone!!! This massive post may be best started from scratch. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

+Which Wikipedia articles were those "magazine" references cited in? —RCraig09 (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Remember: this article is about climate change. Some of this disputed content could be appropriate for other Wikipedia articles, possibly Colonialism, Indigenous land rights, Traditional ecological knowledge, Development aggression or the like. —20:18 ... or Climate justice —22:51, 11 Dec ... or Environmental justice or Food sovereignty —18:11, 12 Dec ... or Climate change and indigenous peoples. —RCraig09 (talk)

First of all, you have not engaged with any of the points I have made related to Whyte, or the idea that Edge Effects is a more reliable source, as a popular academic publication, than many of the references on this page. Please engage in full discussion if we're going to talk about this.

Regarding your points about the cited article, first of all, and again, I would recommend you read it, because it details the impacts of climate change on Native peoples through history. Second of all, just as I pointed you toward Kyle Powys Whyte's work on the subject which makes him more of an expert than numerous journalists cited on the page, I recommend you look up the author of the Edge Effects article. Seems to be a reputable writer on the subject, moreso than some others cited across the page. A large part of this argument is semantics, because it seems like you do not like the content of a publication. The publication and the writing therein is reputable and reliable, whether you agree with the content or not. If you have an issue with the framing, "crisis" vs "change", then by all means, change that framing, but don't call into question reputable sources from academics because you disagree with what they say. Finally, because I'm going to respond to each of your points, and I'd appreciate if you'd extend me the same courtesy, the Edge Effects article on the plantationocene has been cited at the [page], under "Humanities" and "debate" for some time.

I am aware this article is about climate change. Many of these sources, especially the one you seem to have the biggest issue with, and the Kyle Whyte articles, are also about climate change--Hobomok (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what the references say. That's not the point, anyway.

You repeated deflect to Whyte. I did not say anything about Whyte.

I am talking about Wikipedia standards and how they govern specific content here. I'm not insulting sources, but questioning their uses on an encyclopedia.

I have repeatedly brought up the "kleptocene" essay (!) by an unknown "Kyle Keeler", from which you have deflected but to which apparently not engaged. See WP:BLOG. Do you believe the related content here complies with WP:NPOV, especially WP:IMPARTIAL?

It is not enough that another author "seems to be a reputable writer on the subject". WP:RS describes reliable sources, not reputable writers.

It's not enough that a reference be "about climate change". The particular content is what matters.

As you re-read the content in this massive post, do you not see these points? —RCraig09 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You called the SSRN sources into question. Those were the sources from Whyte. Those were originally part of your issue with this edit. That has been remedied. Now you're leaning more heavily on what you have decided are other issues because those sources are reputable. For the record, that first section also includes a citation from Whyte, because Whyte says the same thing. It could also include the Daniel Wildcat reference further down in that section, because that is part of what Wildcat discusses in that reference.

Edge Effects is not a blog. It is a digital magazine published by the University of Wisconsin as a source for public academic writing. You can look at their website and discern this, and figure out pretty quickly that they have a submissions and editorial process, which pretty quickly disqualifies the source from the BLOG description you're claiming. A quick search also turns up the author's Google scholar profile, which shows a publishing history on the subject at hand. So, yes, I believe that this source is a piece of academic writing for a public audience from a reputable source with a submissions and editorial process, and, yes, it is reputable and acceptable for citation here. Other editors on other pages, like the Anthropocene have seen no reason to call into question Edge Effects. I do not understand why there is an issue here. At the end of it, whether or not the Edge Effects piece is used in this section, at this point, doesn't matter much, because there are many other environmental scholars that say similar things.

Regarding a reference being "about climate change," did you not previously say: "Remember: this article is about climate change."? These cited articles discuss climate change in the United States and climate change's impact on Indigenous peoples, so I'd say they belong on this page, in this section. There is an overview of climate change's effect on Indigenous peoples in the United States, followed by three specific, regional examples across the United States. I fail to see how this structure is an issue.--Hobomok (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The WP:BLOG description is not limited to literal "blogs". If Edge Effects were reliable, WP:BLOG would still encompass an essay (!) by a non-notable "Ph.D student" (!) that happened to be published on Edge Effects. And that fact does not avoid WP:TONE issues permeating this post.

Keeler is cited in Anthropocene: "it has been suggested that the epoch should instead be called "The Kleptocene"!!! That Edge Effects cites Keeler's "suggestion" does not elevate this content to being reliably sourced for this article.

You insinuate that I raised the issue that the "structure" of the post (organization of sub-sections) "is an issue". I implied no such thing. One more time: It's about reliably sourced content that is both relevant to the effects of climate change, and expressed in an encyclopedic tone. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted the egregiously false content based on Keeler's claim: "Further, direct attempts to warm the climate in order to displace and kill Native peoples using the settler colonial structure of genocide clearly show the weaponization of climate change as a tool of settler colonialism." He mentions Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson's belief, "with some skepticism" that deforestation would warm the climate. That theory—in the 1700s before the industrial revolution that caused what we now call climate change—has nothing to do with increasing greenhouse gases that in fact cause climate change as we know it. This post's article's (mis)use of Keeler's off-base premise, is simply wrong. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not argue that the article being cited at Anthropocene made it noteworthy. I was explaining to you that it was cited there and there were no issues, and a plantationocene article is cited there, again with no issues, so the reliability and repute of Edge Effects itself has not been an issue on other similar pages. You continue to misrepresent what is being said. Regardless, I'm not going to sit here and argue some person's "notability" on a Wikipedia TALK page with you. The point I've been trying to make is that the source is reputable, but it doesn't matter, because other sources support these statements.

Ultimately, I guess it really doesn't matter, because in the middle of this TALK page discussion you just went ahead and deleted the source and the section we've been discussing anyway, because apparently the [Resolution protocol] doesn't matter to you.

At this point, honestly, I cannot tell what your argument is because you've moved the goalposts so many times (Issue with SSRN sources, issue with rhetoric, issue with sections that should be on other pages) now mainly issue with one source, when you've said "I don't disagree with what the references say," and now you're saying it is "off-base" and "simply wrong." I'll add relevant sources from Whyte, Wildcat, and Zoe Todd and be on my way. There is no reason to continue to engage in combative discussion like this. It's unhelpful, it gets us nowhere, and it's a waste of everyone's time.--Hobomok (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

And apparently you just go right ahead deleting large swaths of what the previous editor added while a talk page discussion is ongoing? I'd previously deleted parts of what the previous editor added in an attempt at resolution, but the parts of the page that remained, I thought, were being discussed here. This is supposed to be a two-way street, isn't it?--Hobomok (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The "goalposts" moved as your arguments and deflections arrived, and as I read more and more of the references. For example, I haven't found a reference I "disagreed" with; I found a reference that used (Franklin & Jefferson era) "changing the climate" in a manner completely different from modern usage of "climate change", so that it was as completely wrong and misleading here as conflating Karl and Grouch Marx. By all means, cite reliable sources accurately for what their fairly disclose, and cut the verbiage at least by half if you have the patience. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I have not been deflecting anything--I've been trying to explain to you that some of the added sources and information was relevant to this page. I also cut sections of the previous additions because I was under the impression that this was a collaborative process and endeavor. You have come in and at every turn insisted that the page reflect your thoughts and ideas. If you want to remove the Edge Effects source, so be it, more can be added from the sources I mention above. However, you also just took it upon yourself to cut other sections, like brief mentions of TEK and how climate affects Indigenous relationships to land, which could have also been kept and edited down, and helps to provide background information for following sections with geographic specifics.

You have cut large swaths of an addition, and then issued orders to "cut the verbiage at least by half." You're not a managing editor, an instructor, or the like, nor am I your student, so meeting me half way as I try to improve another (MIA) editor's positive additions to a page would be helpful. I came here and attempted to copy edit what I thought was important information, then I engaged you in discussion on the talk page, and in the middle of that you've wholesale deleted sections of these additions and then issued marching orders. That's not how any of this works, and you know that. Forgive me if I don't see a point in continuing to copyedit these additions or add anything when it would seem that whatever is added or changed dependent on final approval by an editor who doesn't seem open to discussion/insists on having the final word on this page. --Hobomok (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm usually an inclusionist, for reliably sourced content. Here, I have expressed specific, concrete reasons for each and every deletion I've made (see my edit comments), but you seem to focus on the bare fact that I made deletions. My deletions to a newby's massive, conspicuously non-neutral and non-concise post could have served as a guide for how to make this article more concise (there is "something" in some references) and more credible, but you appear to focus on the bare fact that I cut content. Edge Effects may have articles that meet WP:RS, but the Kleptocene essay (foundation for the leading paragraph) is not one of them in a context about climate change. My comment above, about cutting verbiage by at least half, was tongue-in-cheek—based on rambling paragraphs and entire paragraphs that had to do purely with politics (which may have a home elsewhere in Wikipedia) and not on the effects of climate change (proper content for these subsections). —RCraig09 (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am so grateful that you have come in and done a textbook job of copy editing this. In reality, you’ve cut so much information that you’ve removed sections of the page that had existed and stood prior to the new editor’s edits (see impacts on Indigenous peoples here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_in_the_United_States&oldid=1058869691) (see your edits removing sections of Alaska tribes section here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1059875374). So, what we have here is an editor taking it upon themselves to know what is best on a page, refusing to engage in any collaborative work with other editors, and ultimately thinning a page with relevant information because apparently this is strictly about “climate change,” and other aspects should be taken to “climate justice” or “environmental justice”. You do understand how moving and siloing much of the relevant information you removed to other pages does everyone a disservice, because it hides that information in a place where people may never see it, right? Especially when it is very much relevant to climate change in the US AND climate justice. You do understand that this isn’t a page that you have sole ownership/control of/over, right? You went from “we may have to seek other opinions” yesterday to taking it upon yourself to copy edit this page to your own preferences. This has been a ridiculous series of events. I am thankful the new editor did not have to deal with this, or perhaps they saw the way things were going and decided not to engage, which is good on them for avoiding this headache. I will say, if they are watching this unfold, that this has not been been the generative and collaborative experience amongst editors I’m used to on this website. —Hobomok (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• The "sections of the page that stood prior to the new editor’s edits" were properly removed as political legalities irrelevant to impacts of climate change, regardless of whether new editor Abhurley originally posted it or not. Your claim is another deflection from the true issue.
• I "thinned a page" of irrelevant information, as all editors should do.
• It is obvious that such information should be placed in articles where it is relevant, so it will not be "in a place where people may never see it". It is not "hidden". Your claim is dead false.
• You continue to fail to distinguish between (1) political causes of local climate (mis)use, versus (2) effects of climate change caused by global warming. This distinction is critical here.
• Re "seeking other opinions", be aware that going to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is an extraordinary measure that takes up the time of numerous people. Here, the issues of relevance, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS have been obvious.
• Accordingly, I have not edited according to "my own preferences". They're Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
• You introduced (here) content about Thomas. Fricking. Jefferson welcoming climate change because it displaced indigenous people!!! Jefferson died before the industrial revolution that causes greenhouse gases that have caused climate change as our century understands it. You defend including content from a "kleptocene" reference in a way clearly violating WP:NPOV. It's hard to "collaborate" with that mindset.
• Already, I have repeatedly explained most of these points, and bent over backwards to provide specific edit comments, which constitutes the "engagement" you claim I have not done. I have made 14 (fourteen) edits, and counting, to this Talk Page, in addition to my notice to Abhurley's talk page. In return, you have wrongly insinuated I "disagree" with the references, objected to the section/subsection structure, edit according to my own preferences, and say I have not engaged. False, false, false, and false.
• Obviously, you are relatively new here yourself, and would do well to seriously study WP:NPOV and WP:RS, especially as regards publications versus authors, peer review for science-related articles (WP:SCIRS), and how a source may be reliable for some purposes but not for others.
• Since you obviously share Abhurley's agenda (to which I do not object), it would be constructive for you to enter content into articles in which it is relevant. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

For the record, my recent paring of content does not imply I verified that each reference supports the new editor's content. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• You have decided this previously standing information is irrelevant. Apparently no other editors saw this as irrelevant, as it remained until you came in and made revisions, which another editor objected to, and you removed it while that other editor objected to that removal, which is not how things are handled here.
  
• You thinned the page of information that YOU believe is irrelevant while another editor believes at least some of the information is relevant. Again, not how this is supposed to work.
  
• Again, we keep going back and forth on this: YOU believe this information is irrelevant here. YOU have taken it upon yourself to remove what YOU think is irrelevant. Some of this information, in my mind, relates directly to climate change in the United States and ALSO climate justice and environmental justice. It can belong in BOTH places, perhaps in different manners, but much of the information you removed is related to Climate Change in the United States. You'd have trouble convincing any of the cited scholars here that some of this information doesn't belong in both places, I am sure of that.
  
• You continue to say this, but you do not make any specific points related to it. These are specific examples of climate change's impact on Indigenous communities in the United States. In my mind, they serve as examples of the impacts of climate change on Indigenous peoples, of which there are many and they vary, because Indigenous peoples in the United States are many and varied. Climate Change does not impact all Native peoples in the United States in the same manner.
  
• They have been obvious to YOU, YOU believe this. In some sections this may have been true. However, it is not true in all of the added information, in much of the information that you removed. That dispute resolution takes up people's time is no reason to not seek it out, especially after you've offered to utilize the resource, especially when that is what Wikipedia guidelines dictate when there is an disagreement like the one that is happening here. You have continuously edited and removed information while a disagreement/discussion has been taking place on the talk page. That is not how any of this works. Again, since you've been around so much longer than me, you know this.
  
• You have edited according to what you believe to be necessary and unnecessary information. That is your own preference.
  
• That was an attempt to more accurately represent the source at hand. I may have done so incorrectly or in a clumsy manner--I'm not familiar with that specific piece of writing (although I stand by Edge Effects as a reputable source, despite you continuing to point to the magazine's categorization of the publication as an "essay", which doesn't mean as much as you think it does). Just because I made a clumsy edit is no reason to become combative, ignore anything I say on this talk page, and decide not to collaborate. This is a rough way of interacting with people, to put it mildly. Regardless, we're beyond that specific piece of writing, so in terms of the long history of climate change according to Indigenous scholars and experts, the regimes and processes that created the material preconditions and systems of governance/economics that make climate change as we know it possible, and their effects, in the United States, would you like to take a look at this article by Zoe Todd, or multiple ("Anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is an intensification of environmental change imposed on Indigenous peoples by colonialism") different articles by Kyle Powys Whyte, or this book by Daniel Wildcat, or this book by Leanne Betasamosake Simpson ("We should be thinking of climate change as part of a much longer series of ecological catastrophes caused by colonialism and accumulation-based society")?
  
• Wonderful that you've made so many edits on this talk page. I have as well. The issue is that you don't discuss the edits you're making to the page itself outside of your edit summaries. What am I supposed to do here, revert you and engage in an edit war? Seems like a move that's only going to cause further issues. This is why I've been trying to point out that it's bad practice to engage on the talk page and then take it upon yourself to edit the main page when you don't like what you see or hear. That's NOT the way this is supposed to work. If we have a disagreement, we can agree on the edits that are going to be made, or we can go to dispute resolution. You don't want to do that because apparently that "takes up peoples' time." God forbid. This song and dance surely hasn't taken up any of my time that I could've spent doing something else.
  
• My time editing here, the edits I've made, and the work I've done is small in comparison to yours, this is true. Being condescending about that and being dismissive to the issues I've presented because of that is unnecessary and it's not productive. Again, I'm not going to get into the public/academic conversation about sources with you (I've outlined it above re: Edge Effects and the popular sources represented on the page High Country News, The Rising).
  
• Again, the impacts of climate change on Indigenous peoples throughout the history of the United States, in many ways, were well-represented here and belong. You believe they do not belong because you call sources into question and/or you don't think they belong on a "science" page, when, in reality, these are issues of "science", especially when we take Science and technology studies into account. As "science" becomes more and more interdisciplinary you do a great disservice to the broad field and the peoples represented therein. Again, you do you based on your perspective and your inability to take into account other viewpoints and engage in discussion and collaboration. It's disappointing that this is where certain editors that take it upon themselves to guard certain sections of Wikipedia fall and act. Thankfully this is not representative of the discussions I've had with many people across this website, although it is still disappointing..--Hobomok (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Your 18:33 response is mostly personal, with a non-sequitur or deflection or tangent thrown in, so I will merely summarize, again, that the major issue here has been to distinguish between (1) political causes of local climate environmental (mis)use, versus (2) effects of climate change caused by global warming. This distinction is crystal clear to anyone who can distinguish: (a) cause versus effect(~impact), (b) local environment versus global climate, (c) local environmental (mis)use versus the global greenhouse effect, (d) politics versus science; the section is about the latter element of each of these pairs. I stand by my 17:26 post. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes we'll just ignore where dispute resolution hasn't been followed, or the multiple peer-reviewed academic sources that do not support the claims you've made and do support the information that was added previously (albeit it should have been edited down), or your own personal responses (re: the amount of time I've been on Wikipedia in comparison to your own, for ex.). As I said previously, in direct response to your bullet point wherein you made these previous claims: this article by Zoe Todd, or multiple ("Anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is an intensification of environmental change imposed on Indigenous peoples by colonialism") different articles by Kyle Powys Whyte, or this book by Daniel Wildcat, or this book by Leanne Betasamosake Simpson ("We should be thinking of climate change as part of a much longer series of ecological catastrophes caused by colonialism and accumulation-based society"). But hey, science couldn't ever be political, this page doesn't reflect that anywhere at all, these peer-reviewed sources from experts don't reflect that at all. None of this information belongs here according to you, and you have final say, apparently. I'm done--there are other sections of Wikipedia where editors actually want to collaborate and make sure that this research is represented.--Hobomok (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yet again, the quotes relate to cause, and not effect/impact. Some of the sources may have content suitable for Climate change mitigation or Climate change adaptation. You'll probably have to be more concrete than reciting vague conclusions. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yet again, those sources show that when it comes to Indigenous peoples in the United States and climate change, you cannot separate the cause and the effect/impact. If you don't want to look at the sources or listen to those experts, that's fine, I can't force you to educate yourself on the subject, just like I can't force you to follow dispute resolution protocol.--Hobomok (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

? You "cannot separate" (a) atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration increase, from (b) dead polar bears? —RCraig09 (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to be sarcastic and you don't want to read any of the peer-reviewed sources that I've linked here that would show you exactly what I mean, that's on you. Sarcasm resulting from purposeful ignorance is a hoot! This whole "discussion" is representative of how popular conceptions of/discussions around climate change need to change drastically.--Hobomok (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not sarcasm. Try Climate change and indigenous peoples, which I just discovered. I'm helping you. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

If it's not sarcasm then you're not engaging with the peer-reviewed literature that explains why cause/effect cannot be separated in this case, but you're removing it from the page en-masse because you don't think it belongs. Confused, again, as to how you can make any decision about the work and its findings without reading or engaging with it.

Indeed, Climate change and indigenous peoples should be fleshed out in an encyclopedic manner (I just deleted a huge addition that wasn't written encyclopedically there a few days ago). That doesn't mean some of this peer-reviewed information about Indigenous peoples in the United States and climate change doesn't belong on this page, about climate change in the United States.

You can say you're "helping" all you want, but again, you're pushing this information to another page instead of integrating it, in some manner, here, where it does belong. "Help" isn't necessary; reciprocal collaboration is. There's a difference. --Hobomok (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

To save the entire Wikipedia community time, please quote an exact passage from a reliable source that clearly and unequivocally demonstrates how—especially for Wikipedia purposes—cause and effect "CANNOT" be separated as you claim; and by implication, how one "CANNOT" distinguish between (1) political causes of local climate environmental (mis)use, versus (2) effects of climate change caused by global warming. Be specific and concrete. Vague arm-waving tangents about how science is "more and more multidisciplinary" etc etc etc will not do. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

If you’re going to quote me, “more and more interdisciplinary” was what I said. There’s a difference.

Here’s a quote from Whyte, at length, from “Indigenous Climate Change Studies: Indigenizing Futures, Decolonizing the Anthropocene”. It is representative, largely, of the other studies I’ve cited again and again: “Colonialism refers to a form of domination in which at least one society seeks to exploit some set of benefits believed to be found in the territory of one or more other societies, from farm land to precious minerals to labor. Exploitation can occur through military invasion, slavery, and settlement. Colonialism often paved the way for the expansion of capitalism, or an economic ideology based on wage-labor that prioritizes growth in monetary profits for the owners of assets as the underlying focus, incentive, and purpose of major human social endeavors.

Together, colonialism and capitalism then laid key parts of the groundwork for industri- alization and militarization—or carbon-intensive economics—which produce the drivers of anthropogenic climate change, from massive deforestation for commodity agriculture to petrochemical technologies that burn fossil fuels for energy. The colonial invasion that began centuries ago caused anthropogenic environmental changes that rapidly disrupted many Indigenous peoples, including deforestation, pollution, modification of hydrological cycles, and the amplification of soil-use and terraforming for particular types of farming, grazing, transportation, and residential, commercial and government infrastructure. Colonially-induced environmental changes altered the ecological conditions that supported Indigenous peoples’ cultures, health, economies, and political self-determination. While Indigenous peoples, as any society, have long histories of adapting to change, colonialism caused changes at such a rapid pace that many Indigenous peoples became vulnerable to harms, from health problems related to new diets to erosion of their cultures to the destruction of Indigenous diplomacy, to which they were not as susceptible prior to colonization. Indigenous peoples often understand their vulnerability to climate change as an intensification of colonially-induced environmental changes… Indigenous scholars discuss climate vulnerability as an intensification or intensified episode of colonialism.” (154; 156).

Further, “Anthropogenic climate change makes Indigenous territories more accessible and Indigenous peoples more vulnerable to harm, just as did laws, policies, boarding schools, and the like in previous episodes of colonization. A rising number of scholars, such as Cameron, Stuhl, Haalbloom and Natcher, are adamant that the analysis of Indigenous climate vulnerability cannot occur in the absence of the history and present practices of colonialism and capitalism in Indigenous homelands” (157).

The cause, here, cannot be separated from the effect. The first section added (history of colonialism in the U.S. as it relates to climate change) cannot be separated from the later sections (impact on Indigenous peoples). The sections of that peer-reviewed article between and after those quoted pages show why the sections you also deleted regarding TEK and relations to land affected by climate change were also necessary, albeit they should have been pared down from their original state, which is what I was attempting to do with you via discussion here, before you went full-bore on deletions while discussion was ongoing here. —23:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That's what I anticipated.

What leaps out immediately is the specific language: "Indigenous peoples often UNDERSTAND their vulnerability to climate change as an intensification of colonially-induced ENVIRONMENTAL changes… Indigenous scholars DISCUSS CLIMATE vulnerability as an intensification or intensified episode of colonialism." "Understand"? "Discuss"? Note also the contrast between "environmental" and "climate". Maybe the individuals most vulnerable to the effects of climate change don't separate cause and effect in their minds, but such a subjective reaction—"understand" and "discuss" aren't scientific conclusions—just won't pass muster on Wikipedia as satisfying WP:NPOV or avoiding WP:SOAPBOX.

Likewise, "scholars" (not scientists?) saying "the ANALYSIS of Indigenous climate vulnerability cannot occur in the absence of the history and present practices of colonialism and capitalism..." does not imply the vulnerability and history "cannot" be separated.

You've re-stated your conclusion without providing objective evidence.

Objectively, factually and scientifically, cause and effect are disconnected in at least two ways:

1. Chain of causation: global deforestation --> GHG growth --> Global warming --> Global Climate change --> effects

2. Extent: local deforestation in colonialized regions is only (probably small) part of the cause of global warming (compare to non-colonial industrialization within England, Russia, China and other non-colonialized regions)

The science simply doesn't support a claim that (esp.) political causes of local environmental (mis)use can't be separated from the effects of global climate change. Seriously, you must understand this by now.

Colonialism's contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may be useful in Attribution of recent climate change if you can provide evidence that colonialism produced substantial net GHG growth before the beginning of the industrial revolution (circa 1850). Even then, such GHG increase is only a fraction of what causes climate change and its impacts. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, let’s ignore the statement that colonialism “produce[s] the drivers of anthropogenic climate change, from massive deforestation for commodity agriculture to petrochemical technologies that burn fossil fuels for energy.”

I guess these peer-reviewed studies and direct relations from experts and those experiencing centuries of climate change (its cause and effect) don’t matter, because Whyte is mot defined as a SCIENTIST. He’s only an expert and the study made it through peer review. Even more, because Whyte is not defined as a SCIENTIST, you, it would seem, are qualified to dispute his argument and deem it unfit for use. Makes perfect sense. Further, according to you, because Whyte is not a SCIENTIST, this peer reviewed study from an expert doesn’t hold up to Wikipedia’s standards.

This is what I anticipated, though, because we both know it didn’t matter what peer-reviewed study I offered here, whether it was another piece from Whyte, or it was from Todd, Wildcat, or Simpson, or any other expert; the response was going to go something like this:

“This isn’t a SCIENTIFIC study! This is political! The author doesn’t even quote SCIENTISTS? This article’s about SCIENCE, don’t you understand SCIENCE? The article you cited isn’t SCIENTIFIC enough for Wikipedia standards! etc etc”. Meanwhile, elsewhere, the article depends on information from sources like ‘The Skimm’’ and ‘’The Rising’’. I appreciate the lecture on SCIENCE. I’m happy none of the actual SCIENTISTS that I interact with treat collaboration/people the way that you do. Enjoy the page you’ve got here, and enjoy your supposed expertise on climate change and SCIENCE. -Hobomok (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll ignore your latest strawman arguments.

Again, you miss the point. If presented in context in the proper article (possibly Climate justice) Wikipedia can properly say "Professor X wrote that indigenous people OFTEN UNDERSTAND their vulnerability ..." This is called context. However, Wikipedia content is not governed by how a "people" "understands" something. See also WP:WIKIVOICE.

Your agenda is not wrong. Your choice of venue for WP:SOAPBOXing is wrong. This article is about Climate change as understood by the science you ridicule, not as contorted in a student's "Kleptocene" essay indicting Thomas Jefferson. I'm surprised you don't see that such subjective content demolishes the credibility of your agenda.

I've spent hours helping you see there are articles on Wikipedia where some of this content might properly have a home—if presented in context. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is representative of this entire back-and-forth as a whole: you refuse to engage and then you call certain points "strawman arguments". Finally, you bring up that "Kleptocene" article, which was included by the original editor that made these additions, and which I haven't discussed for some time. When I did discuss it, I was only trying to make a point related to the reputable nature of the publication it was in. This article, though, has not been a point of contention for a long time, as I said previously, "whether or not the Edge Effects piece is used in this section, at this point, doesn't matter much, because there are many other environmental scholars that say similar things" (diff). I also think you're grossly misrepresenting that piece, but that's neither here nor there.

More important and to the point at hand: I am not "ridiculing science". I am pointing out that you create a binary between capital S "Science" and Indigenous experience and ways of knowing that Whyte and other scholars (Todd, Simpson, Wildcat, etc.) study and explain. This article is about Climate change in the United States. Native American studies/experience as it relates to climate change in the United States has a place on the page alongside "Science" as you see it. The two fields overlap. The work done by Whyte and the others I just mentioned (notice I don't bring up the "Edge Effects" article, and I haven't for some time) deserves a place here, because it is about Indigenous knowledge and experience around Climate Change in the United States. Their work and findings belong on this page and the pages you've suggested.

Further, the work done by Whyte, Todd, Simpson, Wildcat, and other Native American scholars does NOT fall under WP:SOAPBOX, as it is not "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind"; they are not "Opinion pieces", they are not "Scandal mongering, promoting things 'heard through the grapevine" or gossiping', nor are they "Self-promotion", as I am not anyone that has been cited at any point in these edits.

Finally, I'll end by saying no, you have not spent hours helping me. We were in the middle of discussion on this talk page when you suggested possibly going to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (diff). As we were discussing this changes I was removing sections of the page you were objecting to in order to reach some sort of middle ground (diff). In the middle of discussing the veracity of one source (diff) rather than go to the dispute noticeboard as previously suggested, you began deleting and copyediting large swaths of the previously added content without any discussion at all (diff, diff, diff--the final one deleting content that was on the page prior to the additions you originally took umbrage with). You know that this is not the way this is supposed to work. I did not revert you, because I did not want to engage in an edit war, because I know this is not the way this is supposed to work. Wholesale deleting edits and additions during discussion related to such edits and additions is not dispute resolution protocol.--Hobomok (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not state or imply the works of Whyte etc were WP:SOAPBOXing. Not-soapboxing is a policy that relates to editing on Wikipedia. Such is another of your strawman arguments.

Re dispute resolution, I have already stated that going to Noticeboards are extraordinary measures. Preliminary to that, applying the commonly-followed WP:BRD guideline here shows Abhurley's original massive WP:SOAPBOX post was "Bold"; my edits were the "Revert"; and I agreed to "Discuss" promptly upon your request. I can see I should have initially reverted Abhurley's entire post instead of a piecemeal cleanup, but in any event the discussion on this Talk Page would be exactly the same. Experienced editors summoned from the Noticeboard would be able to distinguish cause and effect, local environment (mis)use from global greenhouse gas emission growth, "how indigenous people UNDERSTAND something" versus scientific conclusions. You would be consuming their time as well rather than placing valid content in context in articles where it belongs.

I've spent a couple of hours trying to find a non-"activist" reference re colonialism-caused climate change, as independent sources are obviously preferred as references in an encyclopedia. The most appropriate I could find were some articles describing the assertions of activists, which I have added to the article, placing them in context (as assertions).

The most useful thing that could be done in this regard would be to find an independent, apolitical, scientific reference that breaks down quantitatively how much historical greenhouse gas emissions have been generated from colonialist-governed lands; that would causally link the local colonialist environmental (mis)use to global climate change's effects, that activists assert. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Well you’d forgive me, then, for being confused when you stated this, re:the quote from Whyte: “What leaps out immediately is the specific language: "Indigenous peoples often UNDERSTAND their vulnerability to climate change as an intensification of colonially-induced ENVIRONMENTAL changes… Indigenous scholars DISCUSS CLIMATE vulnerability as an intensification or intensified episode of colonialism." "Understand"? "Discuss"? Note also the contrast between "environmental" and "climate". Maybe the individuals most vulnerable to the effects of climate change don't separate cause and effect in their minds, but such a subjective reaction—"understand" and "discuss" aren't scientific conclusions—just won't pass muster on Wikipedia as satisfying WP:NPOV or avoiding WP:SOAPBOX” (diff). So adding those quotes would be soapboxing? A quote from a peer reviewed article by an expert is Soapboxing. Ok.

I’ve provided you at least six peer reviewed studies from notable Indigenous scholars (not activists) that make these points. You’ve ignored them, in one case explained how it doesn’t pass scientific muster to be added to this Wikipedia page, and instead you’ve decided to add a piece of writing from mic.com. How does drawing from Todd, Wildcat, Simpson, or Whyte for these points not make sense but using mic.com does? Further, and again, you’re continuing to shut out and refuse to utilize Indigenous studies and request “independent” and “apolitical” “quantitative research.” Research from these authors doesn’t reach a “scientific conclusion”? It’s not “independent”? How does it not? Why isn’t it? Why do none of those studies from these experts that have been cited again and again work, but mic.com does and the research you request is preferred?—Hobomok (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Time: Studies seem to focus on carbon emissions in the industrial era, and don't specifically break down by "colonialism" period

Region: Cumulative carbon emissions studies don't specifically break down by "colonialism" regions, which presumably may include the Americas, but probably not Europe or Russia or much of East Asia

Global average temperature for ~2,000 years

Global warming didn't really blast off until the 1980s. Impacts have followed.

Seriously, you do not understand the crux of this sub-issue is CONTEXT??? I've added content expressed in CONTEXT, that actually supports your agenda. Whyte himself describes himself at https://muse.jhu.edu/article/711473 as a "Potawatomi scholar-activist"!!! One more time, see WP:RS and also WP:WIKIVOICE. Explicitly or implicitly biased sources are what encyclopedias seek to avoid. It takes more work, but finding more objective sources ADDS to the credibility of your agenda. Why do you spend so many words complaining to me, when you could be doing something constructive, searching for more objective sources? Go. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Example of CONTEXT: In context of source: "Mel said Don is a stable genius." Not in context of source: "Don is a stable genius." —RCraig09 (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

To repeat: The most useful thing that could be done at this point would be to find an independent, apolitical, scientific reference that breaks down quantitatively how much historical greenhouse gas emissions have been generated from colonialist-governed lands, that would causally link the (a) local colonialist environmental (mis)use to (b) global climate change's effects. 05:01, 14 Dec ... + Maybe going through any references on which Whyte etc rely, would yield useful quantitative studies. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, I'm not going to spend any more words EXplaining to someone why Indigenous experiences relative to climate change's cause/impacts don't depend on how you see them as a "subjective," nor does Whyte's self definition as a scholar-activist make his work weaker than what you view as "objective" studies (funny you could go search and find that introduction when you haven't been bothered to look at any other writing I've linked to here from other Indigenous academics relative to these topics. Also funny how Native people haven't needed "objective" quantitative studies to be right about this kind of stuff before, except when certain people require "objective" studies for Native experience and history to matter).

I also don't need a lesson on context, I don't care if you've "face-palmed" because of this interaction, and for the umpteenth time, condescending directions on what I should be doing are unhelpful and unnecessary. This has been truly unpleasant.--Hobomok (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Was it proper to say, The climate of the U.S. is changing... "because of" the U.S.'s greenhouse gas emissions?

RCraig09 and I disagree on this but perhaps before hearing our arguments others would like to comment first - that way you may come up with new angles before getting stuck in our grooves? Then after Xmas RCraig09 and I can write. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The narrow question is: Was it accurate to state "The climate of the United States is changing in ways that are widespread and varied, because of the country's greenhouse gas emissions"? — especially in the lead sentence. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Because of the many other factors involved in change (many external to the U.S.), I don't think it's accurate to say "changing because of the country's GHG emissions". If the claim is interpreted as "changing in ways that are varied because of", I suppose it might be accurate if U.S. GHG emissions were singularly responsible for a large amount of variability or diversity in the change. Seems unlikely. So on the face of it, I say "no". _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Willondon I didn't mean ""changing in ways that are varied because of". By "many other factors" do you mean other countries' GHG or something else such as climate feedback or aerosol changes? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I meant both: the other domestic factors besides GHG emission, and the external factors (including but not limited to GHG emissions). Or as Sarah Palin would say, specifying which sources she consults to stay informed, "All of 'em". _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would say no: GHGs know no border, and mix globally. It's warming because of global GHG emissions. No formal attribution studies have been done with only the US' share of emissions. Femke (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• No, but it's easy to fix, just say "partly because of". There's probably a source saying what percent of GHG emissions to date are the responsibility of the United States, in case you want more precision. Efbrazil (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Roughly 25% which I think means those still in the air - hopefully no argument about that number. Quite happy with "partly" for most countries but will argue the case for USA (and possibly UK to show I am not anti-American if I succeed for USA but that might be trickier) Chidgk1 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Before I weigh in on GHG I just want to simplify the discussion by attempting to dismiss the "other factors" of aerosols and feedback suspected by Willondon as currently insignificant. Although these might be important in future my question is about current (say averaged over 21st century to avoid variations due to El Ninyo etc) climate change in the USA. If I remember right the temperature rise due to lockdown aerosol reductions in 2020 was miniscule compared to the GHG produced average annual rise. And I didn't notice anything very significant in the recent IPCC WG1 report about current feedback compared to GHG. If I am wrong please correct me. RCraig09 - are you happy with that simplification and do you have other GHG arguments than those above? If so feel free to write now if you wish. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Woah: "attempting to dismiss the "other factors" of aerosols and feedback suspected by Willondon as currently insignificant" where did I say anything remotely close to that? In fact, I said just the opposite, that they were significant, and thus the reason I think it's wrong to say because of U.S. GHG emissions. ?? _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry my wrong wording - you suspected them to be significant but I am saying they are insignificant Chidgk1 (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (area of boxes) show modern-day US contribution is a small fraction of total GHG emissions.

• No. I strongly oppose any such mention.

Global GHG emissions are the major driver of climate change.

Here, it's extremely misleading, and simply bad science, to say US temperatures are rising "because of" US GHG emissions—just as it would be extremely misleading to say Liechtenstein's temperatures are rising "because of" Liechtenstein's GHG emissions.

See chart. There is zero point in this "CC in the US" article to implement Efbrazil's suggestion to re-state one country's small—looks like less than 5%—contribution to present-day causation of a global phenomenon. Even mentioning it would support the nonsensical insinuation that each country's GHG emissions are the main cause of that particular country's warming.

I am 10²³ 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 percent opposed to introducing any such implication, especially to the lead sentence of an encyclopedia article. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Bear in mind I am saying nothing about future climate change or other countries. My argument is about current climate change in the US and is as follows:

1. 25% of the GHG currently in the atmosphere is from the US
2. Therefore the US is responsible for 25% of current global climate change
3. Whatever method you use to divide up the globe by country (population, proportion land area, GDP etc.) the US is less than 25%
4. Therefore the US is responsible for at least 100% of climate change in the US

Unlike a lot of continental Europeans I never studied philosophy - so what is the flaw in my argument? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Where to begin. With (2), it is you who seem to think other factors are insignificant (I'm so puzzled now over your previous comment about what I suspect, that I think you must have misread or misattributed something.) But let's say (1) and (2) are true, implying that GHG is responsible for 100% of climate change. I think a big problem with (3) is that you cannot divide up the globe when it comes to emissions into the atmosphere. But if you could, (4) could be true, but that would imply that if U.S. were to reduce emissions to 0, then there would be 0% climate change in the U.S. Also, (4) in itself implies that the U.S. might be responsible for more than 100% of the climate change in the U.S.

As for studying philosophy, or even dabbling in the "love of wisdom", it's never too late. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Cumulative CO2 emissions by country (probably similar to total GHG emissions)

Newly created graphic 28 Dec 2021: Cumulative GHG emissions source implies that by 2030 that US will have contributed only about 16% of all GHG emissions.

(after edit conflict with Willondon) @Chidgk1: Your logic (esp. #4) is disproven by the following facts: (a) The effect of US GHG emissions (you say 25%) spreads out across the planet. (b) The effect of GHG emissions of the rest of the world (say, 75%) also spreads out across the planet. (c) Collectively, global GHG emissions (100%) cause global warming that causes climate change globally. (d1) US GHG emissions do not push away the 75% and "circle back" to hit only the US!!! and (d2) non-US emissions don't avoid the US!!!

Even accepting your logic, the number would be 25%—not enough to say US climate changes "because of" US GHG emissions. Further, the term climate change does not mean "any change in climate"; the term refers to changes in the planet's climate system.

True, your proposed lead sentence mentions only the U.S. However, uninformed readers will likely infer the nonsensical insinuation that each country's GHG emissions are the main cause of that particular country's warming. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't you think that CO2 molecules are analogous with euro notes - whether the euro notes circulating in, say, Greece were issued in Greece or Germany they are still worth the same? So if the Greek central bank issued an enormous quantity of euros even if a few of the euros circulating in Greece were from Germany we could still say the Greeks caused their own inflation. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

See newly created GHG chart at right. Cumulative GHG emissions suggest that by 2030 that US will have contributed only about 16% of all GHG emissions, even less than the 25% you mention above.

Both sides of your GHG-Euro analogy fail. It is unacceptably misleading to state or insinuate that "Y" occurs "because of" something "X" caused only about 16% of. Specifically, it's unacceptably misleading to say that US climate change occurs "because of" US GHG emissions that are only ~16% of global GHG emissions that collectively cause global climate change. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The 25% US share of cumulative emissions so far is reliably sourced. My question was specifically about current climate change - I make no claims about 2030. But as no one so far in this discussion agrees with me it is probably not worth me discussing further. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)