As an ancient Fiji's communication tradition， the Talanoa Dialogue was introduced into the global climate governance process with the aim of enhancing countries' nationally determined contributions， urging relevant parties to propose more ambitious goals， and promoting concrete actions to address climate change. However， the current dilemma of global climate governance indicates that the dialogue has not yielded its intended positive outcomes， which is mainly due to the different thinking paradigms behind the Dialogue and the dominant mindset in current global climate negotiations. The former advocates transcendent binary oppositions and emphasizes the process of dialogue rather than the outcome， while the latter advocates mutual oppositions with a clear positional presupposition， and focuses on the goal rather than the process. Whether and to what extent the latter paradigm can be transformed will have a direct and profound impact on global climate governance. From this perspective， the Dialogue has not failed， but its transcendent ideological connotations are at odds with contemporary international politics.