Talk:Climate change in Australia

Fact tags

The last couple of paragraphs have assertions that simply cannot stand as they are - they need citations SatuSuro 10:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree relast couple of paras re attitudes of Austrlians so reworked the section. Left one para which needs support. dinghy (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only a political issue

Foreign policy - Kyoto protocol, an international treaty
Business - See ask Citigroup for their presentation from about 10 businesses released in late May 2008. Brokers are already picking winners and losers
Economic - Stern and Garnaut and CSIRO have all released reports indicating that the economy is likely to be worse of without mitigation
Environmental - CSIRO says the World heritage listed Great Barrier Reef will be largely bleached every year with 2 degrees warming
Scientific - the CSIRO has been doing research for years
It has become a political issue only because the overwhelming (it has convinced 178 states to sign and ratify the Kyoto protocol) scientific evidence is that there will be major changes to climate that will have dramatic effects.
dinghy (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

CREATED BY M4$T3R$ID3

Contradiction: First or Ninth Highest Emitter?

The article Climate Change in Australia states that Australia is the world's ninth highest emitter of greenhouse gasses, while the article Effects of global warming on Australia states that Australia is the highest emitter. Which of these is correct?Sstr (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ninth overall and highest of the Annexe 1 countries to the Kyoto Protocol (the list of "developed" countries dinghy (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Im gay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.51.132 (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

PENISEEEEEEE i looove itt

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "abc1" :
  • 1
  • http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s530052.htm accessed 15 May 08

DumZiBoT (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Carlos hat nur 1 ei — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.51.132 (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Article has massive POV and sourcing issues

I am going to put some work into this article to straighten it out. The later part contains massive issues with WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:RS, and several broken links. The first half lacks sourcing for alot of its statements and relies in some cases on sources of dubious reliability.

There are many instances of sources being used to support material that they are not related to.

Some specific issues:

Lead

P1 sentence two contains a claim that is contested (#1 per capita emissions or #9?). On this talk page a user indicates it should be #9. Appears someone read that talk and changed the other article instead, sourcing it from an advocacy website (!). I will try and find a WP:RS.

P1 sentence two contains a red-flag claim that is not sourced (academic studies have clearly shown the influence of fossil fuel and light metal (aluminium and titanium) industry lobby groups on the country's political system to be both strongly established and highly extensivee.))

P2 sentence one is inaccurate. All fed + state goverments have accepted the IPCC report, which states with a 90% confidence that >50% is anthropogenically driven. The wording will be updated appropriately. Perhaps The Australian Federal goverment and all Australian state governments have explicitly accepted the scientific consensus on climate change as defined by the IPCC. Sourcing for such a claim would be useful. The lead does not require sourcing, but only if it is a summary of material sourced in the body of the article.

The rest of P2 is pretty rubbishy.

P3 should name and quote from the source. The second half of the line is rubbish and will be removed.

Sourcing

• 23 this could easily be balanced by reporting the facts - as per the Flannery effect (where when TF makes a disaster prediction the opposite occurs) Perth's water stores have since increased
• 24 these "examples" almost certainly do not support the WP:SYN they are cited against. Notably, one is from 1945!
• 25 by its name, almost certainly does not support the WP:SYN it is cited against
• 26 does not support what it is cited against
• 27 is a link to advocates talking about a poll without details about the poll itself and is used to support an extravagant claim
• 28 is a broken link and patently wrong (Workchoices >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other issues re Kevin 07)
• 29 does not meet WP:RS - advocacy website
• 30 is an op-ed from a not-notable source and has little in common with the WP:SYN it is cited to support
• 31 broken link cited to synthetically "support" absolute rubbish.
• 32 the WP:WEIGHT in article space given to this - "and there continues to be sceptics" - is distinctly out of proportion given entire paragraphs are being synthesised from sources such as 30
• 33 is unsupported by any other sourcing in its primary article, while in this article is used to support a statement of fact where it is only a report of a claim made by a single person

Also re 32, it is notable that no other attempts have been made to find "sceptical" media reports and write this article to be WP:NPOV. Jaimaster (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for source 27 - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24455802-12377,00.html Jaimaster (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, and have added a few others, particularly the use of weasel words. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Have not forgotten this, just scratching for the time. Will still be attempting a fix at some point. Jaimaster (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Source 1 supports an otherwise factual claim, but is an otherwise terrible source for that section of the article. Looks like someone googled and grabbed the first thing that was vaguely related. Will attempt to find a better source. Jaimaster (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just on polls. Lets say I want to apply upward pressure on the results shown by the abc quoted poll. I ask similar questions, but instruct my demographer to source responses from enviromentalist groups.

• Do you believe humans have played some role in the recent climate change?
• Coal fire plants release nearly half of Australia's total GHG emissions. Would you support phasing them out by 2020?

Lets say I wanted to apply downward pressure on the response numbers from 85% and 77%. I ask the below questions, sourcing responses from employees of the automotive and related industries:

• Do you believe that humans have caused at least half of the warming shown over the last century?
• Coal fire power plants are the backbone of Australia's power generation. Without them or a nuclear replacement, brownouts and blackouts are garunteed, especially on days of peak power demand, probably leading to hundreds, perhaps thousands of deaths from heat stroke and freezing, especially prevalent amoung the elderly. Would you support phasing out coal fired power plants and replacing them with intermittant, unreliable wind and solar sources by 2020?

Polls are worthless unless you know the questions asked and how the participants were sourced. Jaimaster (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get too negative about polls. There are quite a few reliable polls that discuss climate change and their sampling approach etc. eg., [1] -- McTavish 2 (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a far better source than a link to abc hosts talking about a poll... ill make an edit with intent to replace at some point. Does 80% of Australia really prefer Obama to McCain? That makes McCain nearly as unpopular here as Brendon Nelson :s Jaimaster (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic

There is no need to list detailed climate change organisations activities on this page. If the organisation is notable they should have their own page where that information should be placed, leaving a short summary on this article. I will try to fix this as I remove the excess ext. links and improve the referencing. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Discover (magazine) resource

In the USA version of December 2011 issue, article Going to Extremes: From floods to cyclones to fires of unimaginable ferocity, climate change has unleaded a host of plagues on Australia. But catastrophe has spawned a national rebirth. on page 56 to 63 by Linda Marsa. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There would be more authoritative sources than than particular magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate, or at least unexplained, image

I've removed an unexplained image that seems to have been stuck into the article. --TS 04:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)