needs balanced perspective Climate change should be discussed with global warming entry they are one and the same thing This has to be a balanced discussion also discussing the forecasts and uncertainties in forecasting temperature CO2 increase which are proposed as the causes of the examples of climate change that are presented Discuss the politicization sp of the entire issue the role of IPCC of Gore etc This is very much at the heart of the attention and emphasis being given Discussion of post 1950s warming does not mention the pre 1950s temperature drop that is not explained by the forcings and predictive climate models The forecasts predictions are major part of the actual basis for the attention and emphasis in the carefully planned publicity campaign of the IPCC IPCC readily acknowledges that their role is to expand awareness to provide push for policy makers The 90 95 etc probabilities are without merit are not based on independent scientific fact but Delphi polling of scientists who are doing the scientific modeling In fact IPCC acknowledge that it is not possible to predict the future trajectory which is why they are developing scenarios not forecasts Scenarios assume a set of initial values or base starting points for the forcings and forecast how these forcings will play out over time This does not adequately take into account technological change that is and will continue to occur None of this is identified and discussed in this entry In this regard some analogies with Thomas Malthus An Essay on the Principle of Population 1798 aka Malthusian catastrophe Malthusian crisis Malthusian dilemma Malthusian disaster Malthusian trap or Malthusian limit Wikipedia Paul Ehrlich The Population Bomb 1968 Club of Rome Limits to Growth 1972 as well as Orsen Well radio case of H G Wells War of the Worlds 1936 as an example of how the media can be an effective force in public opinion Both in the US and UK court rulings do not allow presenting discussing the climate change issues without a balanced view of the issues such as mentioned here Wikipedia entries should also be required to be required to meet the same standards in presenting balanced views The need for climate change policy is based on economic evaluation of the future pattern of costs vs benefit The Stern review which is discussed has been strongly criticized in peer reviewed journals because of its assumptions and approaches which very greatly favor support the recommendations which is neither scientific or intellectually honest See e g the following references Nordhaus WILLIAM Q A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change Journal of Economic Literature Vol XLV September 2007 pp 686 702 Weitzman MARTIN L A Review of The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change Journal of Economic Literature Vol XLV September 2007 pp 703 724 Pielke Roger Jr Mistreatment of the economic impacts of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change Science Direct Global Environmental Change 17 2007 302 310 Nordhaus William D Alternative measures of output in global economic environmental models Purchasing power parity or market exchange rates Science Direct Energy Economics 29 2007 349 372 Preceding unsigned comment added by talk contribs You seem to have missed the line at the very beginning for current global climate change see global warming Merging them would be like merging the history of the United States with the 2008 presidential election The global warming page in the terminology section states that global warming is an example of climate change a subset as it were The way these two articles are broken up is completely wrong 122 104 2 224 How so Global climate change is purely the projected change of the climate Global warming is an example of climate change it is the heating of the climate However if temperatures drop which many people believed before that too would be global climate change I do however agree that this page needs to be expanded Preceding unsigned comment added by talk Special Co