User talk:216.197.221.91

April 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generaliation, other talk pages such as Talk:climate change are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems that Wikipedia contributors are allergic to discussing their own assumptions. In this case, CO2 is bad, without any proof offered, any change in climate compared to 1850 AD is bad, without any proof offered. None of the article on climate change hangs together and currently makes as much sense as the children's story about Chicken Little's claim that "The sky is falling". How can I say that? Look up at the sky, do you see CO2, or do you see clouds from condensed water vapor? You should know that more cloud cover moderates diurnal temperature, and clouds can make rain. Atmospheric water vapor is the primary vector for atmospheric temperature modulation, not CO2 which is present in minuscule amounts in the atmosphere circa 400 ppm. Just because certain unscrupulous political activists are pushing the Luddite notion of climate change as evil, does not excuse policy based on "The sky is falling." Is climate change evil? Well no, actually with any luck if the Earth warms up a bit more, life will proliferate, just as it has in the prehistorical record. Improve the article? Actually, erasing that collection of fairy tales would be an improvement. Instead, my attempt at common sense was erased, as it often is when I point out how dogmatic and frankly insane Wikipedia activism is. You should know that the article is harmful because harmful policy is supported by exactly such nonsense. Even if only one person reads this post, my hope is that that person will think twice before jumping to outrageous conclusions based on rumor and innuendo. 216.197.221.91 (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not a shared IP address, I have no inclination toward being doxed by at times quite abusive activists whose opinions are so misinformed that they would not pass review in any reputable journal, and I have a reputation as a reviewer for actual scientific publications to maintain. What I have posted is true, but truth, logic and validation are not criteria for Wikipedia posting for any current issue with political innuendo sufficing as evidentiary. This is unlike other post types on Wikipedia for which I so self-identify. 216.197.221.91 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)