The result was no consensus. PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
There is a lot wrong with this page. The main problem is that it has no clear definition. Indeed the current [ [1] when I wrote this] text starts Whilst the term runaway climate change has no widely-accepted definition... following extensive crit on talk about lack of defn. The author has attempted to cure this by continuing it are [sic] used to describe periods of self-sustaining climate change in scientific literature... but the two references he has managed to find to back this up are deeply unimpressive, and far away from the climatological literature you would expect ( [2] [3]. In essence they confirm that the term isn't used in the scientific literature. We're so desperate for a defn that the opening para concludes A blog dedicated to the concept also exists which is an obviously NN blog with only one post [4]. If we knew what RAC is, we could attempt to clean it up and make sense of it. For example, I doubt that arctic shrinkage counts as RAC; but since we don't know what RAC is it's rather hard to argue one way or the other. William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Update: the author has added a defn from a newspaper [5]. If the article is to be about media coverage of the concept, that would be fine. But it isn't; it aspires to be about a scientific concept William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I've just been sent a big list of papers that use the term. Please holdon until I've had a chance to rework. Andrewjlockley ( talk) 18:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Would a move to runaway (climate change) help remove any ambiguity with similar terms such as runaway greenhouse effect? Andrewjlockley ( talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply