Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia proven right

2019-09-18T19:38:00Z

1890's guy: Grammar fixes and source checking

'''''Conservapedia''''' has often been proven right on a wide range of topics including science, politics, sports, and [[video games]]. In many cases, [[liberals]] pathetically tried to ridicule predictions that subsequently rang true:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of ''Conservapedia'' statement
!''Conservapedia'' statement
![[liberal claptrap]] in response
!Result
!Date of Result
|-
|December 26, 2006
|The [[Nobel Prize]] "selection process has become political, as it was not given to [[Ronald Reagan]] or [[Pope John Paul II]] or to anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]]. The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken [[liberal]]s, such as [[Jimmy Carter]]."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize&oldid=7393</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] insists that the Nobel Prize has integrity, despite overw[citation needed]helming evidence to the contrary.
 In 2015, it was leaked that the prize was given to Obama more to advance the liberal goal of nuclear disarmament than "in recognition of what he had accomplished."<ref>http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/freepress/story/2015/sep/21/president-obamas[citation needed]-nobel-peace-awardregretted-o/326069/</ref>
|October 9, 2009 (award), and March 3, 2015 (unprecedented demoting of chairman who made the award).<ref>http://www.dw.de/chairman-of-[citation needed]nobel-peace-prize-committee-demoted/a-18292026</ref>
|-
|February 18, 2007
|Strident, hysterical denials by liberals, whoppose even teing womethe possibility of an increase in risk.[citation needed]
|February 27 and December 2, 201
|March 15, 2007[citation needed][citation needed]
|Observed that [[Bill O'Reilly]] of the [[Fox News Channel]] is not [[conservative]], and cited several key examples.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_O%27Reilly&oldid=37999</ref>
|[[Liberal media]] continued to pretenhat O'Reilly is somehow a leader of the [[conservative movement]].
|O'Reilly endorses the [[liberal]]s' amnesty bill for illegal. (Ultimately he was fired for personal misconduct.)[citation needed][citation needed]
|June 20, 2013[citation needed]
|-
|May 7, 2007
|A [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&oldid=147388 quiz] suggests that willingness to consider that the speed of light has been different in the past could be used as a measure of openmindedness. While the quiz takes no position on this question, there are articles in scientific magazines exploring this issue and suggesting that it may very well have been different as recently as 2 billion years ago.<ref>https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently</ref>
|While there are scientists that are curious about evidence (such as the Oklo "reactor") that the speed of light, or the fine-structure constant, has changed, the scientific community generally accepts that it has not changed significantly, if at all. Not because relativity requires it, but because conservation of energy and of momentum require it.
|An article "Einsteinian error: The 25-year-old supernova that could change the speed of light forever."<ref>http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184879-einsteinian-error-the-25-year-old-supernova-that-could-change-the-speed-of-light-forever</ref> appears on the internet. It is not about an actual change to the speed of light, but to a change in the way the "speed of light" is perceived. It turns out that light doesn't actually travel at that speed; it's slower by about 1 part in 300 million due to vacuum polarization. See <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Speed_of_light#Does_light_travel_at_the_.22speed_of_light.22.3F</ref>, <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Speed_of_light#Has_the_speed_of_light_changed_through_the_history_of_the_universe.3F</ref> and <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/C_decay</ref>
|March 25, 2013
|-
|August 18, 2007
|Because [[Jon Stewart]]'s movies "almost always do very badly (critically and financially) people say that there is a 'Jon Stewart Curse' that he brings to all his movies."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jon_Stewart&oldid=271190</ref>
|His audience of [[public school]] kids is clueless.
|The 2008 Oscars, which he hosted, set the modern record for fewest viewers, and except for one very minor part as himself Stewart has not appeared in a movie since Conservapedia's observation in 2007.
|February 24, 2008[citation needed]
|-
|October 4, 2007
|In 2007, Conservapedia creates its [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] article.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality_in_animals_myth&oldid=308759</ref>
[citation needed]|July 15, 2009
|-
|January 10, 2008
|Conservapedia observes that [[Shaken Baby Syndrome]] is a doubtful theory by governmental child protective services, which has resulted in dubious convictions.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=[citation needed]&oldid=367617</ref>
|The governmental "experts" must be right and Conservapedia must somehow be wrong.
|Years later, even [[National Public Radio]] admitted doubts about a conviction for Shaken Baby Syndrome, and [[Democrat]] Governor [[Jerry Brown]] commuted a high-profile sentence for it.<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/shaken-baby-case-an-update/#.T4DftOjeRkI.email</ref>
|April 7, 2012
|-
|February 27, 2008
|Conservapedia warns against the [[HPV vaccine]], observing that it was not tested for possibly causing infertility.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&oldid=395596</ref>
|How can government and the big pharmaceutical industry be wrong???
|The ''British Medical Journal'' reports on a case study of a severe condition of infertility in a 16-year-old girl subsequent to taking the HPV vaccine.<ref>http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2012/bcr-2012-006879.abstract</ref>
|October 3, 2012
|-
|April 14, 2008
|Conservapedia coins the term "[[media bullying]]."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Media_bullying&oldid=430832</ref>
|[[liberal denial]] in response
|Prominent African American physician [[Benjamin Carson]] observes, "The bullies are ... especially the media who like to just beat on anybody who doesn't toe the line ... they suppress [[freedom of speech]]."<ref>http://newsbusters.or[citation needed]g/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/03/09/dr-carson-media-bullies-suppress-freedom-speech-beat-anyone-who-doesn#ixzz2N5XWfVMc</ref>
|March 9, 2013
|-
|October 5, 2008
|Observed that [citation needed]is likely Muslim and could become the first Muslim President.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=530340</ref>
|While liberals would denounce the religion of Obama's future rival, [[Mitt Romney]], they insist that Obama's religion cannot be questioned.
|Once elected, Obama stops attending church, and he eschews using a Bible for his official swearing-in procedure; [[Obama's Religion|Obama makes it clear that he is likely Muslim]] in additional ways.
|January 21, 2009
|-
|March 24, 2008
|Beginning in March 2008, Conservapedia begins chronic[citation needed]ling higher education moral corruption via its [[Professor values]] article.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Professor_values&oldid=412536</ref> Starting in 2010, Conservapedia repeatedly warns students about picking their college majors on its main page. See: [[Worst college majors]] Conservapedia also cites [[Gerald Celente]] about future protests in Europe/Europe and cites Celente concerning useless college majors which needlessly rack up debts in young people. Conservapedia warns about a future "higher educational bubble".<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/archive91</ref>
|
|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing.
|
|-
|December 22, 2008
|The theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occur[citation needed]ring, despite much evidence to the contrary.
|In 2011, frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory b[citation needed]y the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]"; in 2011 and 2013, even the [[liberal media]] admit there has been no atmospheric warming since 1998.[citation needed]
|July 6, 2011 <ref>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/</ref>
|-
|August 4, 2009
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|February 3, 2011
|-
|September 21, 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitud[citation needed]e.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>https://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly[citation needed].htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|November 1, 2009
[citation needed]|Liberals, leftists and Wikipedia denied that the medical term gay bowel syndrome was a useful medical term.
|In February 2014, the medical journal ''Current Opinion in Infectious Disease'' publishes a journal article entitled '''Gay bowel syndrome': relic or real (and returning) phenomenon?'' whose abstract summary statement indicates: "All healthcare practitioners (including non-sexual health/HIV spe[citation needed]cialists) need to consider careful and thorough history taking (including sexual history) to identify those at risk."<ref>[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24335755 'Gay bowel syndrome': relic or real (and returning) phenomenon?] by Cooper F1, Barber T., ''Current Opinion in Infectious Disease'', 2014 Feb;27(1):84-9. doi: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000032.</ref>
|-
|November 28, 2009
|Conservapedia asserts that the [[Theory of relativity]] is fals[citation needed]e, and creates the page [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], initially containing 10 counterexamples that include [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&oldid=724599</ref> The list of counterexamples grows to 50 over the next decade. Quantum entanglement now appears in items 6 and 21.
|Widespread ridicule by [[libera[citation needed]l]]s across the internet.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Community_Portal/Archive_1#Two_millionth_page_view_for_the_.22Counterexamples_to_Relativity.22_page In a Google search, at least 97% of the articles were derisive</ref>
|The "Biggest Test Yet" shows that Einstein was wrong in his opposition to strict "[citation needed]Copenhagen" quantum mechanics. The test was about [[action-at-a-distance]] ([[quantum entanglement]])<ref>https://www.livescience.com/62523-physicists-crowdsource-a-reality-check.html LiveScience news article</ref><ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Action_at_a_distance</ref> It was not about relativity. Yet, perhaps because of [[liberal bias]], anyone who questions relativity is unlikely to get a high school science teaching job, much less a PhD or college faculty position.
|May 9, 2018
|-
|January 14, 2010
|Conservapedia identifies the significance of an effort to reca[citation needed]l Menendez from office.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Robert_Menendez&oldid=744786</ref>
|Liberal[citation needed]s stood by Menendez for years.
|Finally the ''[[New York Times]]'' said that [[Harry Reid]] should take a committee gavel away from Menendez.<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/opinion/mr-menendezs-ethics-problem.html?hp&_r=0</ref>
|February 8, 2013
|-
|March 14, 2010
|''Conservapedia'' predicted that [[Rick Santorum]] was a stalking horse for [[Mitt Romney]]<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=762021</ref>
|Some mistakenly viewed Santorum as the only other option besides Romney, at the expense of [[Newt Gingrich]]
|After taking votes away from Gingrich, Santorum surprised many by dropping out of the race, practically giving the victory to Romney; Santorum then endorsed Romney-like [[Jon Bruning]] instead of the [[conservative]] [[Don Stenberg]] for [[U.S. Senate]] in [[Nebraska]], and then endorsed Romney in a late-night email.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/santorum-underwhelming-endorsement-romney-081055500.html</ref>
|May 7, 2012
|-
|April 19, 2010
|In [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], ''Conservapedia'' observed that intelligence has long been declining.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=770704</ref>
|Repeated attempts to remove the insight from the entry.[citation needed]
|A Stanford Uni[citation needed]versity geneticist confirms that intelligence has been declining for thousands of years.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/nov/12/pampered-humanity-less-intelligent</ref>
|November 12, 2012
|-
|May 16, 2010
|In starting the new entry [[Worst College Majors]], Conservapedia observed that "[t]he worst college majors are fields of study that leave the student with relatively few job opportunities and often a distorted or ultra-liberal view of the world. If the student incurred debt in attending college, then he is left with obligations without any practical way to pay for them."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Worst_College_Majors&oldid=778795</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] about several of the examples.[citation needed]
|A study shows that the earnings gap between good and bad college majors is bigger than the gap between a college and high school diploma.<ref>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/05/picking-college-major-mean-big-money/28578259/</ref>
|June 6, 2015[citation needed]
|-
|June 12, 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/June_2010</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement.
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 13, 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Letter_to_Douglas_Moo&oldid=791512</ref>
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|November 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|October 14, 2010
|Conservapedia observes and predicts increased premature graying, in Cal Ripken, Anderson Cooper, and Taylor Hicks for example, as a [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=822877</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] that one can draw geological or cosmological conclusions from a few people's gray hair. Whether premature graying is actually on the increase is not known.
|A top actress—Katie Holmes, the (now former) second wife of Tom Cruise—is observed having gray hairs at only age 33.
|April 29, 2012
|-
|January 18, 2011
|Observing that a very large percentage of college students are not developing higher thinking skills.<ref>https://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html</ref> The trend of liberal colleges closing their doors continues.<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/07/09/baldwin</ref><ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/</ref>
|[[Occupy Wall Street]] and other Occupy protests happen in the United States and in Europe in 2011 and young people are very prevalent in the protests. Some protests turn violent and engage in property destruction. In November 2011, the Daily Mail reports concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement and the trash/garbage associated with it: "If this is the product of our liberal arts colleges, why continue their tax exemptions and tax support? Universities are supposed to produce intelligent people who will make a positive contribution to society. Not these pigs".<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46288</ref> In 2011, it is reported that Occupy movements are littering the streets.<ref>http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=1967</ref>

Young Occupy Wall Street protesters are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|
|-
|January 23, 2011
|Conservapedia observes how harmful [[Facebook]] is, and how little is accomplished on it.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Facebook&oldid=843357</ref>
|Liberals defend their gossipy, ad-driven site.
|Facebook breaks up many marriages, and the "Article Reach on Facebook is Seeing a Huge Decline ... and Facebook has now stated plainly that they expect organic reach to continue to fall."<ref>http://www.opusfidelis.com/blog/article-reach-on-facebook-is-seeing-a-huge-decline/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Weekly+OPUSfidelis+Blog&utm_content=Weekly+OPUSfidelis+Blog+CID_46b2948b9d2c498c82c9c31369d1dc43&utm_source=Email+marketing+software&utm_term=Article+Reach+on+Facebook+is+Seeing+a+Huge+Decline</ref>
|March 18, 2014
|-
|February 27, 2011
|"Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none have ever been found."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&oldid=852797</ref> This was actually true at the time, but the implication was that gravitational waves would ''never'' be found.
|The (perhaps overzealous) researchers at the "BICEP2" project claimed to have discovered evidence of gravitational waves from the "[[big bang]]".<ref>https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3985v1</ref> This was shot down in 2015: "Gravitational waves discovery now officially dead."<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-waves-discovery-now-officially-dead-1.16830</ref> But in 2015 and 2016, gravitational waves from colliding [[black hole]]s were irrefutably detected by the [[LIGO]] instruments. See [[Gravitational waves]].
|Confirmed.<ref>http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102</ref><ref>http://www.ligo.org/news/pressreleases.php</ref><ref>http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102</ref><ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/image/ligo20160211a</ref><ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/video/ligo20160211v2</ref><ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/gravitational-waves-ripples-space-time-detected-first-time-n516566</ref><ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEPIwEJmZyE</ref><ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/it-wasn-t-fluke-scientists-see-black-holes-collide-again-n593156</ref><ref>https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-detect-second-gravitational-wave-einstein-predicted/</ref><ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160615</ref><ref>https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/video/ligo20160615v2</ref><ref>https://phys.org/news/2017-06-gravitational-insight-black-holes.html</ref><ref>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36472434#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa</ref>
|January 21, 2016
|-
| February 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months.
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination and has lost political influence.<ref>https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/105741/</ref>
|October 5, 2011
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_Presidential_Race_-_Endorsements_for_Republicans_2012&oldid=944456</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself.
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|October 11, 2011
|-
|September 3, 2011
|Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=909160</ref>
|Liberal denial becaues this would suggest that [[atheist]]ic claims of a stable [[Old Earth]] are untrue.
|"A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress," according to a presentation at the Seismological Society of America.<ref>https://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-earthquakes-usa-idUSBRE83G1FL20120417</ref>

On May 24, 2013, the second massive earthquake in 2013 (magnitude 8 and above) occurred, ''which is more than the total annual amount in each of the past 5 years''.<ref>https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0525/Russia-8.2-earthquake-is-big-but-no-deaths</ref>
|April 17, 2012 and May 24, 2013
|-
|November 2, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed that [[Pacific Institute]] was not a non-partisan environmental group but deceitful liberals promoting lies.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pacific_Institute&oldid=933383</ref>
|Pretend that Peter Gleick and other environmentalists don't utilize bad science or push political agendas
|Pacific Institute's president Peter Gleick promoted bad science and pushed a biased liberal political agenda by admitting to fraud in 2012.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref>
| February 21, 2012
|-
|January 3, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Iowa Caucuses]] before all the results were in, and despite polling suggesting he would only attain third place
|For weeks the [[lamestream media]] insisted that [[Mitt Romney]] won.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|January 20, 2012 <ref>https://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/santorum-now-the-iowa-winner-officially-111713.html</ref>
|-
|February 7, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Colorado]] primary relatively early in the evening, long before all the results were in, and despite Romney later surpassing Santorum during part of the night
|Liberals delayed for hours before admitting that Santorum would win.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|February 8, 2012
|-
|March 9, 2012
|"Disney movies, which have churned out liberal claptrap for more than a decade, strike out again on opening night for Disney's lame ''John Carter''. The last Disney movie to qualify for [[Greatest Conservative Movies]] was its brilliant Beauty and the Beast (1991)."
|Liberals don't criticize Disney as long it continues to promote [[feminism]] and other liberal drivel.
|The Disney film unit chairman "resigned following the company’s $200 million loss on the science-fiction picture 'John Carter,' possibly the biggest ever for a single movie."
|April 20, 2012
|-
|May 8, 2012
|Observed that [[Rick Santorum]] was a [[stalking horse candidate]] in 2012.
|Liberals were clueless.
|Santorum pulled out early from the race for president in 2016, and surprised other [[conservative]]s by endorsing the moderate [[Marco Rubio]], but as predicted by Conservapedia he [[Expected to endorse Jeb|did not endorse Jeb Bush]].
|February 3, 2016
|-
|June 23, 2012
|[[Overrated Sports Star]] "Tiger Woods -- hasn't won a major tournament in years, and yet he's still all that [[liberal]]s want to talk about in covering golf tournaments."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=989076</ref>
|Hard to dispute this criticism.
|More than six years after Conservapedia's observation, Tiger Woods still "hasn't won a major tournament in years, and yet he's still all that liberals to talk about in covering golf tournaments."
|August 10, 2014
|-
|June 23, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' adds [[David Beckham]] to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]] <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=989076</ref>
|Liberals desperately tried to find a role for Beckham, eventually having him play the absurd part of conveying the torch by speedboat to the Olympic Stadium while the final part of the ceremony was in progress.
|To the amazement of liberals, Beckham was not even selected for the British Olympic soccer team, even though other players over the age of 23 were selected. Subsequently, the media promoted Beckham as the likely final torchbearer, which was instead given to [[the best of the public]] (five unknown but rising young athletes).
|June 28, 2012
|-
|June 23, 2012
|Observing how overrated LeBron James is by the media.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&direction=next&oldid=989112</ref>
|Disapproval of criticism
|Despite enormous media hype for James, he and his team were routed by little-known players on the San Antonio Spurs for the championship in 2014. The following year, [[Stephen Curry]] is widely recognized as the best player in the NBA, and he leads the unheralded ''Golden State Warriors'' to the championship and a record-setting 24-0 start in the subsequent season.
|June 15, 2014, and then year 2015
|-
|June 24, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' adds Manning to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]].<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=989247</ref>
|Liberals insist that Manning will be better for Broncos, and pretend that politics had nothing to do with this surprise replacement. The following year the media virtually declare Manning to be one of the greatest players ever, and that praise continued in 2014.
|To the amazement of liberals, Manning throws 2 key interceptions that enable the underdog Ravens to humiliate the Broncos in Denver in their first playoff game in early 2013; in 2014 he throws twice as many interceptions as TDs in a humiliating loss for the Broncos the following year in the Super Bowl; and in 2015 he plays poorly as Denver is crushed in its first round of the playoffs.
|January 11, 2013, February 2, 2014, and January 11, 2015
|-
|August 13, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' observes that nations which adopt [[same-sex marriage]] then decline in competitiveness at the Olympics.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2012_Summer_Olympics&oldid=1000056</ref>
|Liberal denial
|Germany, which rejects [[same-sex marriage]], wins the [[World Cup]] without losing a single game, including a record-breaking 7-1 rout of Brazil 7-1 in the semifinals.
|July 13, 2014
|-
|September 6, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' added [[God]]-denier [[Lance Armstrong]] to our list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]] <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=1004539</ref>
|Liberal denial continued about Armstrong, insisting that he be removed from this entry because Armstrong continued to deny the obvious;<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&diff=prev&oldid=1004539]</ref> the liberal Olympic bureaucrats refused for months to strip Armstrong of his medal, until after Armstrong admitted his doping.
|Finally and pathetically Armstrong admitted what he had so aggressively denied about doping.
|January 14, 2013
|-
|Fall 2012
|''Conservapedia'' repeatedly predicted that liberals would not allow one of the [[Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Star]]s, [[Tim Tebow]], to have any real playing time on the ''New York Jets'', and that it would pathetically fail without Tebow.
|Liberals insisted Tebow would play if the other QB failed, or that Tebow was not good enough to play, despite how he led the underachieving Broncos to a playoff victory against the highly ranked Steelers.
|The ''New York Jets'' failed miserably while never giving Tebow any real playing time, and the ''Jets'' were eliminated from playoff contention even before the last week of the season.<ref>http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/new_york_jets_eliminated_from.html</ref>
|December 18, 2012
|-
|November 18, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' observed that the ''L.A. Lakers'' had packed their starting line-up with [[Overrated Sports Stars]], and then hired their preferred coach despite how a better one was available.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=1019273</ref>
|Liberals thought these players and the hiring of the new coach were good because the media told them so.
|In 2013, the ''L.A. Lakers'' barely made the playoffs, and then were routed by record-setting margins in the first round. Then, in 2014, the ''Lakers'' set a club record for the most ''losses'' in a season, and failed to make the playoffs.
|April 17, 2014
|-
|December 1, 2012
|"Indeed, it is debatable whether black holes exist at all."<ref>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_Relativity&oldid=1452218</ref> Actually, the article referenced in support of this quote says no such thing. It is about whether an object speeding past Sagittarius A* is a star or merely a gas cloud, concluding that it is a star.
|The [[liberal media]], and the scientific community, claim black holes exist, so it must be true!!!
|An article in ''Nature'' quotes Stephen Hawking writing "The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity", that is, black holes are not perfectly black. The issue of light or information leaking out of black holes has been an active area of research for several years, and has lately taken the form of the "event horizon" being replaced by the "apparent horizon" or the "black-hole firewall". Be that as it may, the fact that black holes aren't ''perfectly'' black at the quantum level doesn't mean that the things that scientists call "black holes" don't exist.<ref>http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583</ref>
|January 24, 2014
|-
|January 3, 2013<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=1026721</ref>
|[[Fidel Castro]] died in 2006 with a terminal illness in a Cuban hospital. The [[Obama Administration]] knew this and Barack Obama did not visit or even mention Fidel Castro during Obama's visit to Cuba in March 2016. Photos of stand-ins for Fidel Castro were the wrong height, and had him wearing thick scarves on hot days to hide the stand-in's younger neck and lack of wrinkles.
|Tepid liberal denial because the truth was obvious.
|Officials announce that Castro is dead on the eve of a government mandatory briefing of President-Elect Donald Trump, who would have exposed the lie to the public. Thousands of Marxist liberals then mourn the surprise "death" of one of the 20th century's greatest monsters.
|November 25, 2016
|-
|January 8, 2013
|"The liberal media go along with the communist cover-up about [[Hugo Chavez]], despite how he likely died in a Cuban hospital in December."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1028225</ref>
|Repeated insistence that reports in the lamestream media that Chavez was alive from December to March, including even a photo purporting to be him, must be true.
|Hugo Chávez is indeed dead, but the [[BBC]] claims he died nearly two months after Conservapedia had already informed the world of that fact.<ref>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21679053</ref> It is reported that Chavez's decomposition is too advanced for embalming. Proving he died much earlier than reported.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-venezuela-chavez-embalming-idUSBRE92C1GC20130313 Venezuela may be unable to embalm Chavez's remains]</ref>
|March 5, 2013
|-
| February 3, 2013
|''Conservapedia'' observed that extended 35-minute blackout at the [[Super Bowl]] was likely caused in part by the energy rationing mindset of liberals.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=1055150&oldid=1032962</ref>
|It was a faulty relay, the lamestream media and local authorities claimed.
|It was not a faulty relay - relays almost never fail in such a manner, as confirmed by an expert quoted by ''National Geographic''.
|February 9, 2013
|-
|April 23, 2013
|"Tamerlan Tsarnaev probably murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA likely proves it."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=1048618</ref>
|Even though the DNA match is quick and known to the Obama Administration, even though there will be no trial of Tamerlan, and even though closure on the 9/11-anniversary murders would comfort families of the victims, liberals want the DNA match to continue to be withheld from the families and the public.
|More than two weeks later (and nearly three months later for the ''[[New York Times]]''), stories began to appear in the lamestream media that forensic evidence and cell phone records confirm the likely involvement of Tamerlan Tsarnaev in committing the gruesome murders.
|May 11, 2013 ([[mainstream media]] outside of [[New York Times]])
 July 10, 2013 ([[New York Times]])
|-
|June 13, 2013
|Added Tom Brady to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]].
|The [[liberal media]] pretend that the self-centered Tom Brady is one of the greatest football players ever, and brag about the multi-many-million dollar home he moved into.
|It was discovered that Brady had probably been cheating for an extended period by using deflated, easier-to-throw footballs in violation of NFL rules, and the NFL suspended him for four games. Brady fought the suspension, refused to apologize for his cheating, and lost on appeal.
 Lacking perfect pass protection and unable to use improperly deflated footballs, Brady demonstrated how lousy he really is by leading his team to an upset defeat at the 2016 AFC Championship game.
|May 11, 2015, and Jan. 24, 2016
|-
|July 1, 2013
|[[Best of the public]] is triumphing at [[Wimbledon]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=1059301</ref>
|"You obviously don't understand tennis!" and "occasional upsets don't result in championships in big tennis tournaments!"
|15th seed Marion Bartoli won Wimbledon in 2013 '''''without losing a set the entire tournament''''', the rarest of achievements; two years later, the women's finals at the U.S. Open in 2015 did not include anyone ranked among the top 20 players; the champion at the women's U.S. Open in 2017, Sloane Stephens, was ranked only No. 934 in the world the month before.
|July 6, 2013; Sept. 12, 2015; Sept. 9, 2017
|-
|July 27, 2013
|Predicting liberal negativity, as required by the [[homosexual agenda]], towards the [[Winter Olympics]] because it was being hosted by pro-heterosexual Russia.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Winter_Olympics&oldid=1062259</ref>
|Liberal denial
|Russia was spectacular in successfully hosting the Olympics and winning the medals race, and several articles afterward were critical of the media and others in how they criticized Russia.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/olympics/bondy-putin-games-worth-weight-gold-article-1.1699246</ref>
|February 23, 2014
|-
|May 15, 2015
|Criticizing the cover-up and the failure by [[Brandon Bostian]], a [[homosexual]] activist, to explain his accelerating a speeding Amtrak train into a curve, causing its derailment, killing of 8, and injury to more than 200.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1152838</ref>
|The federal government, the [[NTSB]], tries to cover up the wrongdoing and even scolds the Philadelphia mayor for criticizing Bostian; a year later, the NTSB issues a shamefully ridiculous report to cover up the wrongdoing further and even implicitly try to blame the [[Republican]] [[Congress]] for it.
|Bostian is charged with multiple serious crimes by the [[Pennsylvania]] Attorney General, after the local district attorney declined to prosecute.
|May 12, 2017
|-
|August 3, 2015
|Predicting that [[Lindsey Graham]] was merely a [[stalking horse candidate]] who would only temporarily pursue his "far-fetched candidacy" for the [[2016 presidential election|2016 presidential race]]<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stalking_horse_candidate&oldid=1167261</ref>
|[[Liberal]]s were clueless.
|Lindsey Graham abruptly pulled out of the race in time to help [[Jeb Bush]] before [[Christmas]], and on January 15, 2016, endorsed Jeb Bush just as ''Conservapedia'' had predicted.<ref>https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/lindsey-graham-to-endorse-jeb-bush-for-president-217838</ref>
|December 21, 2015, and January 15, 2016
|-
|August 11, 2015
|"Trump will take New Hampshire"<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/139#What_if....</ref>
|[[Liberal]]s mocked Trump and thought he never had a chance.
|Trump won New Hampshire on his way to winning the nomination.
|February 9, 2016
|-
|August 11, 2015
|"Different candidates are expected to win the Iowa caucuses and the NH primary, rendering the subsequent primary in South Carolina very influential."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=South_Carolina_primary&oldid=1168198</ref>
|
|In both the [[Republican]] and [[Democratic]] primaries, the prediction of Conservapedia came true despite polling to the contrary.
|February 1 and 9, 2016
|-
|September 6, 2015
|Conservapedia launches an "[[unplug the NFL]]" campaign in response to the religious discrimination by the [[NFL]] in excluding outspoken [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]], who experts widely agree is qualified to play in the league.
|[[Liberal]] [[double standard]] says religious discrimination against Tebow is OK, even though racial discrimination would not be.
|2.5 million Americans do "unplug the NFL" for [[Super Bowl|Super Bowl 50]], stunning experts who predicted a record TV audience.
|February 7, 2016
|-
|September 20, 2015
|Conservapedia observes that [[Jeb Bush]] is the [[Establishment]] candidate for the [[Republican]] nomination for president.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Establishment&oldid=1172191</ref>
|Liberals were silent, perhaps hoping Jeb would defeat his more [[conservative]] rivals.
|Jeb Bush raised and spent far more campaign money than [[Donald Trump]], but was destroyed in a landslide by Trump in the 2016 election primaries. Then Jeb Bush's longtime top political adviser, Sally Bradshaw, left the [[Republican Party]] and declared that she will vote for [[Hillary Clinton]] if the race is close in [[Florida]].<ref>http://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/01/jeb-bush-adviser-sally-bradshaw-gop/21442889/</ref>
|August 1, 2016
|-
|January 27, 2016
|Conservapedia criticizes the [[feminist]] [[Megyn Kelly]] and explains how phony she is.<ref>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Megyn_Kelly&oldid=1195188</ref>
|The [[liberal media]] continue to give her a platform.
|[[NBC]] fired her after low television ratings and her comments about "blackface" that were deemed offensive<ref>https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/26/nbc-news-cancels-megyn-kelly-today.html</ref> and untrue.<ref>https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/megyn-kelly-went-our-high-school-no-blackface-wasn-t-ncna925101</ref>
|October 26, 2018
|-
|February 18, 2016
|Conservapedia predicts that Barack Obama will not meet with "[[Fidel Castro]]" during Obama's visit to [[Cuba]], despite how a "Fidel" has met with other leading foreign dignitaries after the severely ill Fidel checked into and probably died in a Cuban hospital in 2006.
|Liberal denial persists about the obvious [[communist]] hoax in pretending that Fidel Castro recovered and voluntarily gave up power in 2006.
|The [[liberal media]] announce that Obama will not meet with [[Fidel Castro]] during Obama's multi-day visit there, yet the liberal media does not point out that the obvious reason is to avoid humiliation to Obama for meeting with a fake Fidel.
|March 20, 2016
|-
|July 7, 2016
|Concerning [[Donald Trump]] and [[Ted Cruz]], ''Conservapedia'' explained that "Trump is telling Ted that the train is leaving the station now, with or without Ted."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1245431</ref>
|Political "experts" downplayed the issue of whether Cruz would endorse Trump.
|[[Ted Cruz]] was loudly booed at the [[Republican National Convention]] for giving a speech that failed to endorse [[Donald Trump]], and two days later Trump said he would not accept a belated endorsement by Cruz.
|July 20, 2016
|-
|August 5, 2016
|''Conservapedia'' explains that [[joke sports]], [[political correctness]], endless swimming events won by the same person, and [[liberal claptrap]] by the media reduce [[America]]n interest in the [[Olympics]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1268648</ref>
|[[Liberal media]] expects record audiences.
|Viewership is down sharply over the first five nights.
|August 10, 2016
|-
|August 9, 2016
|Conservapedia predicted that in the 21st century Britain would begin to become [[desecularization|desecularized]].<ref>[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=British_atheism&diff=1269505&oldid=1269504 Difference between revisions of "British atheism"]</ref> In addition, previously Conservapedia pointed out multiple instances of the foolishness of the [[New Atheism|new atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]].
|British atheists railed at Conservapedia. Richard Dawkins' fans behaved as if he were invincible. Wikipedia editors whine about Conservapedia taking a "strong critical stance" against public figures such as Richard Dawkins in the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia.
|On December 29, 2018, ''The Times'' publishes an article entitled ''Atheism is down as UK gets spiritual''.<ref>[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/atheism-is-down-as-uk-gets-spiritual-z00nxczn7 Atheism is down as UK gets spiritual], ''The Times'', December 2018</ref> The [[Elevatorgate]] controversy dramatically reduced the public influence of Richard Dawkins and much public criticism has been directed his way - especially among atheists/[[agnosticis|agnostics]] (See: [[Richard Dawkins' loss of influence]] and [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Atheist factions]]).
|December 29, 2018
|-
|August 17, 2016
|''Conservapedia'' criticized the [[liberal media]] and one of its favored athletes, Ryan Lochte, for telling and promoting a false tale of armed robbery near the [[2016 Summer Olympics]],<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1271150</ref> which smeared the gracious hosts.
|Liberal denial continued to downplay or refuse to admit the falsehood.
|The truth came out, but liberal denial persisted and some continued to defend Ryan Lochte.
|August 19, 2016
|-
|October 21, 2016
|''Conservapedia'' observed that three effects will boost Donald Trump above his poll numbers in the election:
*Brexit effect - 5 point error by polls due to media bias causing people be afraid to be candid with pollsters
*Arnold Schwarzenegger/Reagan effect - 8-10 points better than polling,[68] due to media bias and also advantage enjoyed by Republican entertainers
*Scott Brown effect - many points due to much greater enthusiasm<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=1284862</ref>
|sarcastic criticism and liberal denial
|Donald Trump exceeded the polling by about four points, and won an election that [[liberal]] experts predicted with great confidence that he would lose.
|November 8, 2016
|-
|November 7, 2016
|''Conservapedia'' observed that the second letter by disgraced FBI director [[James Comey]] to exonerate [[Hillary Clinton]] was actually helpful to Donald Trump, because it fed the backlash among the [[grassroots]] at the preferential treatment given to Hillary.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1288160</ref>
|[[Free trade]]rs at the ''Wall Street Journal'' falsely assert that the letter helps Hillary.
|In the post-election analysis, [[Hillary]]'s campaign confirmed that the letter hurt her even though it purportedly exonerated her.<ref>Fears, Danika (November 11, 2016). [http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/team-clinton-blames-james-comey-for-tuesday-night-massacre/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_1293073 Clinton aide’s bizarre explanation for Hillary’s humiliating loss]. ''The New York Post''. Retrieved November 16, 2016.</ref><ref>Chozick, Amy (November 12, 2016). [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-james-comey.html?_r=0 Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved November 16, 2016.</ref>
|November 16, 2016
|-
|March 21, 2017
|Supreme Court nominee [[Neil Gorsuch]] is not a strong [[conservative]] as pretended by his cheerleaders.<ref>www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Neil_Gorsuch&diff=1323361&oldid=13a06396</ref>
|A torrent of opposition to this criticism of Gorsuch, mostly by [[D.C.]]-based, faux [[conservative]] groups.
|Barely a year later, Gorsuch then provided the swing vote by joining with four [[liberal]] Justices to block deportations by [[Trump]],<ref>https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/immigration-ruling-gorsuch-528749</ref> and an analysis of Gorsuch's voting record in his first full Term revealed that he was more [[liberal]] than even Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]].<ref>https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/27/neil-gorsuch-was-more-liberal-than-antho</ref>
|April 17, 2018, and June 28, 2018
|-
|March 31, 2017
|[[Dems]] will attain the 41 votes necessary to successfully [[filibuster]] the confirmation of stealth candidate [[Neil Gorsuch]] to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1327433</ref>
|[[RINO]]s and much of the [[liberal media]] doubted that the Dems would attain the 41 votes needed for a successful filibuster.
|Dems announce they have the 41 votes to block the [[pro-abortion]] nominee.
|April 3, 2017
|-
|June 17, 2017
|"[[White House]] [[Chief of staff]] [[Reince Priebus]] should be fired."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3AMainpageright&diff=1354638&oldid=1354549</ref> On July 28, 2017, a Conservapedia admin wrote: "Priebus is going to lose this battle and get fired - especially since Scaramucci is so loyal to Trump".<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=1363884&oldid=1363883 Main page talk edit by Conservapedia admin [[User:Conservative]] ]</ref>
|[[RINO]]s rally to his defense.
|[[Trump]] reportedly fired [[Reince Priebus]], although Priebus told the media he resigned perhaps to save face.
|July 29, 2017
|-
|Aug. 22, 2017
|Conservapedia picks up on and publicizes a hint by President [[Trump]] that he would pardon Sheriff [[Joe Arpaio]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1369058</ref>
|[[Liberals]] pretend that such a pardon would not be constitutional.
|Trump pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio three days later.
|Aug. 25, 2017
|-
|June 16, 2018
|Conservapedia points out how [[Kevin Durant]] is comparable in achievement to [[LeBron James]], and yet the media overhypes LeBron James to a ridiculous extent.<ref>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=1428790</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] tout "Team LeBron" as the Western All-Star team in the 2019 contest.<ref>It should be noted that the teams were named based on their captains, who received the top fan votes in each conference (LeBron in the Western Conference, and Giannis in the Eastern Conference). The teams were not set based on conference (e.g. Eastern Conference All-Stars vs. Western Conference All-Stars), as with other sports leagues all-star games, but outside of the captains the teams were set via a mock "draft".</ref>
|[[Kevin Durant]] carries his side, "Team LeBron," to victory and Durant wins the MVP.
|February 17, 2019
|-
|July 8, 2018
|Conservapedia predicts that [[Brett Kavanaugh]] will be nominated to the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] by [[Trump]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1432359</ref>
|Judge [[Andrew Napolitano]] said the next day on [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] that Kavanaugh had been eliminated from consideration.
|Trump nominates Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court just as we predicted.
|July 9, 2018
|-
|September 19, 2018
|Conservapedia predicted: "[[Brett Kavanaugh]] will be confirmed. [[Social conservatism|Social conservatives]], [[religious freedom]] advocates and [[Originalism|constitutional orginalists]] will soon be breaking out the [[champagne]] bottles."[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&diff=1449147&oldid=1449146]
|Mainstream media repeatedly featured [[Kavanaugh smear|uncorroborated/spurious/outrageous claims]] against [[Brett Kavanaugh]] and were largely silent about information pointing to unreliability of [[Christine Blasey Ford]].
|Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Right-wing news outlets and websites celebrate. For example, the right-wing website Townhall publishes an article entitled '''Let's Do This': After Owning Liberals Today, [[Mike Pence]] Takes A Victory Lap In Front Of Kavanaugh Protesters''<ref>[https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/10/06/lets-do-this-after-owning-liberals-today-mike-pence-takes-a-victory-lap-in-front-of-kavanaugh-protesters-n2526125 'Let's Do This': After Owning Liberals Today, Mike Pence Takes A Victory Lap In Front Of Kavanaugh Protesters], Townhall, October 6, 2018</ref>
|October 6, 2018
|-
|November 10, 2018<ref>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1466487</ref>
|Conservapedia criticizes the $9M, pay-per-view "Match" between two [[Overrated Sports Stars]] who had not won a golf major in many years.
|The [[liberal media]] promote the contest as though it is something special rather than a con.
|There was widespread criticism of the event afterwards, and refunds were even offered based on technical difficulties for viewers who had paid to watch it.
|November 23, 2018
|-
|March 29, 2019<ref>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1505511</ref>
|Conservapedia predicts that [[Joe Biden]] has no political future.
|[[Dem]]s continue to support Biden in polling.
|The [[liberal media]] and other Dems continue to criticize Biden for multiple reasons, including Biden's assertion that he "got things done" with segregationists.
 [[Bernie Sanders]] overtakes [[Joe Biden]] in a [[New Hampshire]] poll on Aug. 13, 2019.
|June 19, 2019
|}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Climate agenda

2019-09-18T19:29:34Z

1890's guy:

<center><big>{{days until|2019|9|18}} Days Until Final Destruction of the Planet'''</big></center>
'''Climate change''' is the new name used by [[liberal]]s for their [[global warming]] hoax, which they coined as it became obvious that there is no crisis in global warming. The modification in terminology is identical to what [[liberals]] did in redefining "evolution" to be "change over time," which of course is a meaningless expression just as "climate change" is. Numerous past predictions of climatic catastrophes have failed to hold up.<ref>Multiple references:
*Lott, Maxim (March 19, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/science/10-times-experts-predicted-the-world-would-end-by-now 10 times 'experts' predicted the world would end by now]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved March 20, 2019.
*[https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-the-art-of-climate-science-11552002661 Notable & Quotable: The Art of Climate Science]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. March 7, 2019. Retrieved March 20, 2019.
*Lott, Maxim (May 28, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/science/five-most-over-the-top-climate-warnings Five most over-the-top climate warnings]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
See also:
*Lifson, Thomas (March 8, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/peer-reviewed-study-shows-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-disaster-predictions Shhhh! Nobody tell Ocasio-Cortez scientists are skeptical of global warming]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved March 20, 2019.</ref>

Climate change does occur naturally, which scientists say has occurred in repeated cycles of cooling (see [[Ice Age]]s) and warming over millions of years. Yet many writers have been urging America to fund an ill-conceived initiative to "stop global warming" as if warmer nights or winters would make human life more difficult. The term "climate change" has largely replaced the term "global warming", in ideological discussions.

Ideologues insist that the world's top scientists have reached a "consensus" that most of the warming which land-based weather stations have recorded in the last century is due to human activity. The basis for this claim is a set of reports published by the [[IPCC]], an agency of the United Nations. The assumption is that the government-appointed representatives who run the IPCC would be completely objective and neutral, and would place finding and revealing the truth ahead of any nationalistic interests.

A lot of money is spent publicizing one side's position in the debate:
* ''Newsweek'' purports to take readers inside the world of “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine” without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/15/the-hottest-year-1934/]

Journalists omit mention of key scientific points:

* Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/17/the-good-side-of-climate-change/]

Ideologues use all sorts of tricks to convince the general public to support them on the climate change issue. A perennial favorite is to trumpet the current year as the "[[warmest year on record]]", as if one [[outlier]] denotes a [[trend]]. Probably the most insidious kind of trick is to accuse objective people of cherry-picking and censorship, while hypocritically doing just that themselves.

The allegedly harmful effects of climate change include warming temperatures, changing weather patterns, an increase in sea level and in general any climate event affected by global warming.<ref>http://chaser.env.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~kengo/lec/IPCC_TAR-FRONT.pdf</ref> Climate change is one of the top [[Environmental Issues|environmental issues]], with [[liberal]]s and [[conservative]]s evenly divided on whether [[global warming]] is man-made or, if it is significantly occurring, is a natural event — along with [[global cooling]]. By 2019, voters were increasingly rejecting radical climate change policies.<ref>Burnett, H. Sterling (May 18, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/around-the-world-backlash-against-expensive-climate-change-policies Around the world, backlash against expensive climate-change policies]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved May 18, 2019.</ref>

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the [[global warming debate]] about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[Climategate media coverage#Climategate media coverage|media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable.<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides</ref>

==Questions==
#What is the most important greenhouse gas?
#*AGW proponents say it's [[carbon dioxide]]
#*A peer-reviewed scientific paper says it's [[water vapor]]<ref>[http://thejll.com/Frascati/ReichelThejllLassenSCL.pdf "Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas ..."]</ref>
#What is the role of clouds?
#*Low-altitude clouds reflect some of the sun's radiation back into the atmosphere, cooling the earth. It's not yet known whether global warming will dissipate clouds, which would effectively speed up the process of climate change, or increase [[cloud cover]], which would slow it down. [http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912448,00.html#ixzz1EyuBDJo1]
#What are the uncertainties in understanding climatic change?
#*The UN's climate panel said recently there is '''a 90% chance''' that most of the last 50 to 100 years of global warming are due to human activity
#*[[Sallie Baliunas]] points out that the same climate panel also said, "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors" [http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/solar.html]

==Links==
*[[cloud cover]]
*[[ice age]]

==Hypocrisy==

Many times, AGW advocates pay lip service to general principles which they themselves violate, while broadcasting false accusations that their opponents are violating these principles. The AGW side has made every effort to censor their opponents, heaping enormous pressure on scientists and other academics to silence them. Accordingly, the US media gave great publicity to [[James Hansen]] when he accused NASA of trying to silence him.<ref>Hansen "shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change" [http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm]</ref>

==Environmentalism and climate change==
The main contention of [[environmentalist]]s like [[Al Gore]] is the argument that:
#The earth's atmosphere warmed one or two degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 Centigrade) during the 20th century.
#Most of this warming is man-made.
#The warming is likely to continue and to be harmful to human, animal and plant life.
#We must all work together to stop it by reducing emission of [[greenhouse gases]].

==Science and climate change==

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
<blockquote>... climate change remains a fascinating and important scientific subject. Climate dynamics and climate history are extraordinarily complex, and despite intensive study for decades, scientists are not yet able to explain satisfactorily such basic phenomena as extreme weather events ([[hurricane]]s, [[tornado]]es, [[drought]]s), El Nino variations, historical [[climate cycles]], and trends of [[atmospheric temperature]]s. The scientific uncertainties about all these matters are great, and not surprisingly, competent scientists disagree in their interpretations of what is and is not known.<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM</ref></blockquote>

William Happer wrote:
<blockquote>The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the [[medieval warm period]] at the time of the [[Viking]] settlements of [[Iceland]] and [[Greenland]] from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “[[little ice age]],” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by manmade changes in the concentration of [[carbon dioxide]] in the atmosphere.<ref>http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf</ref></blockquote>

One of the major problems with many scientists' conclusions about climate change is a misunderstanding of [[correlation]] versus [[causation]]. Some studies show correlations between increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and increasing [[precipitation]], and between human activity and atmospheric greenhouse gases, and then go so far as to conclude that humans are causing increased rain, snow, and catastrophic flooding.<ref>Gillis, Justin. "Study Links Rise in Rain and Snow to Human Actions." ''The New York Times'', February 16, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/earth/17extreme.html?_r=2&ref=science</ref><ref>Schiermeier, Quirin. "Increased Flood Risk Linked to Global Warming." 2011. ''Nature'', Vol. 470, p. 316. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html</ref> Correlation does not imply causation. This is especially true considering the relatively short periods of data used (a few decades at most) compared to the Earth's age, and the fact that weather patterns have been cyclic throughout history (see [[climate cycles]]).

==History of Climate Change vs. Global Warming==
The term climate change has its origins several decades ago when physicist Gilbert Plass published a study called ''The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'' in 1956.<ref>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract</ref>
In this study, Plass postulated the release of CO2 into the atmosphere by industrial and other human activities may have caused the temperature rise noticed in the twentieth century.

The term global warming was first thought to be used by Wallace Broecker, a geochemist from [[Columbia University]]'s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory. His paper, ''Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?'' <ref>http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf</ref> acknowledged the scenario of global warming, though there was a common acknowledgement that airborne aerosols may cause global cooling.

A National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate published in 1979 also used the term global warming to refer to surface temperature change.<ref>http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf</ref> Jule Charney of the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] in Cambridge declared: "If carbon dioxide continues to increase, we find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.” Climate change was still used to refer to the other changes thought to be caused by increased CO2.

==Further reading==
* [http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/CCRG.pdf Climate Change Reference Guide]
* [http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatedirectory/en/index1.html Climate change: directory of references/resources]
* [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php National Climatic Data Center]
* [http://www.realclimate.org/ Real Climate]
* [http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ IPCC Fifth Assessment Report]
* [http://www.thegwpf.com/ The Global Warming Policy Forum]

==See also==
*[[Anthropogenic global warming]]
*[[War on Science]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global warming: both sides]
*[http://www.no-carbon-tax.org Australian Anti-Climate Hypocrisy Site]

{{Climategate scandal}}
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Climate Change]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Climate agenda

2019-09-18T19:26:28Z

1890's guy:

<center><big>{{days until|2019|9|19}} Days Until Final Destruction of the Planet'''</big></center>
'''Climate change''' is the new name used by [[liberal]]s for their [[global warming]] hoax, which they coined as it became obvious that there is no crisis in global warming. The modification in terminology is identical to what [[liberals]] did in redefining "evolution" to be "change over time," which of course is a meaningless expression just as "climate change" is. Numerous past predictions of climatic catastrophes have failed to hold up.<ref>Multiple references:
*Lott, Maxim (March 19, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/science/10-times-experts-predicted-the-world-would-end-by-now 10 times 'experts' predicted the world would end by now]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved March 20, 2019.
*[https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-the-art-of-climate-science-11552002661 Notable & Quotable: The Art of Climate Science]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. March 7, 2019. Retrieved March 20, 2019.
*Lott, Maxim (May 28, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/science/five-most-over-the-top-climate-warnings Five most over-the-top climate warnings]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
See also:
*Lifson, Thomas (March 8, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/peer-reviewed-study-shows-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-disaster-predictions Shhhh! Nobody tell Ocasio-Cortez scientists are skeptical of global warming]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved March 20, 2019.</ref>

Climate change does occur naturally, which scientists say has occurred in repeated cycles of cooling (see [[Ice Age]]s) and warming over millions of years. Yet many writers have been urging America to fund an ill-conceived initiative to "stop global warming" as if warmer nights or winters would make human life more difficult. The term "climate change" has largely replaced the term "global warming", in ideological discussions.

Ideologues insist that the world's top scientists have reached a "consensus" that most of the warming which land-based weather stations have recorded in the last century is due to human activity. The basis for this claim is a set of reports published by the [[IPCC]], an agency of the United Nations. The assumption is that the government-appointed representatives who run the IPCC would be completely objective and neutral, and would place finding and revealing the truth ahead of any nationalistic interests.

A lot of money is spent publicizing one side's position in the debate:
* ''Newsweek'' purports to take readers inside the world of “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine” without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/15/the-hottest-year-1934/]

Journalists omit mention of key scientific points:

* Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/17/the-good-side-of-climate-change/]

Ideologues use all sorts of tricks to convince the general public to support them on the climate change issue. A perennial favorite is to trumpet the current year as the "[[warmest year on record]]", as if one [[outlier]] denotes a [[trend]]. Probably the most insidious kind of trick is to accuse objective people of cherry-picking and censorship, while hypocritically doing just that themselves.

The allegedly harmful effects of climate change include warming temperatures, changing weather patterns, an increase in sea level and in general any climate event affected by global warming.<ref>http://chaser.env.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~kengo/lec/IPCC_TAR-FRONT.pdf</ref> Climate change is one of the top [[Environmental Issues|environmental issues]], with [[liberal]]s and [[conservative]]s evenly divided on whether [[global warming]] is man-made or, if it is significantly occurring, is a natural event — along with [[global cooling]]. By 2019, voters were increasingly rejecting radical climate change policies.<ref>Burnett, H. Sterling (May 18, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/around-the-world-backlash-against-expensive-climate-change-policies Around the world, backlash against expensive climate-change policies]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved May 18, 2019.</ref>

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the [[global warming debate]] about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[Climategate media coverage#Climategate media coverage|media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable.<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides</ref>

==Questions==
#What is the most important greenhouse gas?
#*AGW proponents say it's [[carbon dioxide]]
#*A peer-reviewed scientific paper says it's [[water vapor]]<ref>[http://thejll.com/Frascati/ReichelThejllLassenSCL.pdf "Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas ..."]</ref>
#What is the role of clouds?
#*Low-altitude clouds reflect some of the sun's radiation back into the atmosphere, cooling the earth. It's not yet known whether global warming will dissipate clouds, which would effectively speed up the process of climate change, or increase [[cloud cover]], which would slow it down. [http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912448,00.html#ixzz1EyuBDJo1]
#What are the uncertainties in understanding climatic change?
#*The UN's climate panel said recently there is '''a 90% chance''' that most of the last 50 to 100 years of global warming are due to human activity
#*[[Sallie Baliunas]] points out that the same climate panel also said, "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors" [http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/solar.html]

==Links==
*[[cloud cover]]
*[[ice age]]

==Hypocrisy==

Many times, AGW advocates pay lip service to general principles which they themselves violate, while broadcasting false accusations that their opponents are violating these principles. The AGW side has made every effort to censor their opponents, heaping enormous pressure on scientists and other academics to silence them. Accordingly, the US media gave great publicity to [[James Hansen]] when he accused NASA of trying to silence him.<ref>Hansen "shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change" [http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm]</ref>

==Environmentalism and climate change==
The main contention of [[environmentalist]]s like [[Al Gore]] is the argument that:
#The earth's atmosphere warmed one or two degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 Centigrade) during the 20th century.
#Most of this warming is man-made.
#The warming is likely to continue and to be harmful to human, animal and plant life.
#We must all work together to stop it by reducing emission of [[greenhouse gases]].

==Science and climate change==

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
<blockquote>... climate change remains a fascinating and important scientific subject. Climate dynamics and climate history are extraordinarily complex, and despite intensive study for decades, scientists are not yet able to explain satisfactorily such basic phenomena as extreme weather events ([[hurricane]]s, [[tornado]]es, [[drought]]s), El Nino variations, historical [[climate cycles]], and trends of [[atmospheric temperature]]s. The scientific uncertainties about all these matters are great, and not surprisingly, competent scientists disagree in their interpretations of what is and is not known.<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM</ref></blockquote>

William Happer wrote:
<blockquote>The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the [[medieval warm period]] at the time of the [[Viking]] settlements of [[Iceland]] and [[Greenland]] from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “[[little ice age]],” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by manmade changes in the concentration of [[carbon dioxide]] in the atmosphere.<ref>http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf</ref></blockquote>

One of the major problems with many scientists' conclusions about climate change is a misunderstanding of [[correlation]] versus [[causation]]. Some studies show correlations between increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and increasing [[precipitation]], and between human activity and atmospheric greenhouse gases, and then go so far as to conclude that humans are causing increased rain, snow, and catastrophic flooding.<ref>Gillis, Justin. "Study Links Rise in Rain and Snow to Human Actions." ''The New York Times'', February 16, 2011. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/earth/17extreme.html?_r=2&ref=science</ref><ref>Schiermeier, Quirin. "Increased Flood Risk Linked to Global Warming." 2011. ''Nature'', Vol. 470, p. 316. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html</ref> Correlation does not imply causation. This is especially true considering the relatively short periods of data used (a few decades at most) compared to the Earth's age, and the fact that weather patterns have been cyclic throughout history (see [[climate cycles]]).

==History of Climate Change vs. Global Warming==
The term climate change has its origins several decades ago when physicist Gilbert Plass published a study called ''The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'' in 1956.<ref>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract</ref>
In this study, Plass postulated the release of CO2 into the atmosphere by industrial and other human activities may have caused the temperature rise noticed in the twentieth century.

The term global warming was first thought to be used by Wallace Broecker, a geochemist from [[Columbia University]]'s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory. His paper, ''Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?'' <ref>http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf</ref> acknowledged the scenario of global warming, though there was a common acknowledgement that airborne aerosols may cause global cooling.

A National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate published in 1979 also used the term global warming to refer to surface temperature change.<ref>http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf</ref> Jule Charney of the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] in Cambridge declared: "If carbon dioxide continues to increase, we find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.” Climate change was still used to refer to the other changes thought to be caused by increased CO2.

==Further reading==
* [http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/CCRG.pdf Climate Change Reference Guide]
* [http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatedirectory/en/index1.html Climate change: directory of references/resources]
* [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php National Climatic Data Center]
* [http://www.realclimate.org/ Real Climate]
* [http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ IPCC Fifth Assessment Report]
* [http://www.thegwpf.com/ The Global Warming Policy Forum]

==See also==
*[[Anthropogenic global warming]]
*[[War on Science]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global warming: both sides]
*[http://www.no-carbon-tax.org Australian Anti-Climate Hypocrisy Site]

{{Climategate scandal}}
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Climate Change]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Feminism

2019-09-18T19:24:32Z

1890's guy: grammar fixes

Attributes common to many feminists include an [[entitlement mentality]] and a bit of an attitude, such as a "chip on one's shoulder" despite benefiting from a life of privilege.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSo-q2Dq1aY ''Mickey Randleman - _Feminist_ (IWPS 2014) - 1080P HD_this video was deleted by buttons youtube channel'']</ref>

Feminism was originally an expression u/ref>

Most modern feminists:

* want to remove significant distinctionen dress, such as preferring that women wear pantsuits rather than,<ref>"[T]he wearing of pantsuits is often auseful feminism signifier, depending on the culture of the law firm." [http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=2640]</ref><ref>"I was part of a growing tribe of pesky women called feminists by friends and enemies alike. We women stormed out the door in our imitation men's suits ...." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref> even though many feminists also want women to dress immodestly. In some cases, most infamous
* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying.<ref>[https://www.salon.com/2003/10/16/names_2/ Mrs. Feminist ]: "(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New Y wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is kee her name' seems like the orm, unless his name is Rockefeller.</ref>
* believe marriage implies "female servitude" when it is in fact a mutual bond.
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (E.g.: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* often condemn the God-given order of roles, as laid out in the Holy [[]].
* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey";<ref>[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-06-19/news/0906180620_1_sen-barbara-boxer-ma-am-state-condoleezza-rice Sen. Barbara Boxer: No ma'am referencesshgfkwejdb;ozidbjnvplease], [[Chicago Tribune]]</ref> object to other female-only names, such as "temptress".
* take offense at grammatical rules of the English language, like using the pronoun "he" when referri to a hypothetical/anonymous person, or phrases like 'fireman' and 'stewardess.'
* support the [[homosexual agenda]].
* push propaganda that implies that women weren't allowed to be granted an education until the 1960s, and all education beforehand was granted solely to "rich white males."<ref>https://www.mediafire.com/folder//World_History_up_to_the_1500s</ref>
* demands that women choose a overaising children without any remo
* criticize music such as [[heavy metal music|heavy metal]], [[rock and roll]], and [[country music|country]] for being "sexist".
* object to anyone [[Northern Europe|Northern Europe]] and [[Western Europe]]an women being [[modesty|demure]] or [[Southern Europe|Southern]] and [[Eastern Europe]]an women as [[seduction|seductive]].
* Denounce and demean any women who more feminine traits and embrace their femininity
Note that women who haveto over the family business due to their parents not having a son and the parents themselves being unable to continue working at the area is not considered feminist due to the circumstances involved. Some feminists want to do away with masculinity.<ref>Ernst, Douglas (October 30, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/occidental-college-professor-attack-masculinity-di/ Professor pushes need to ‘attack masculinity directly’ to survive Trump era]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved October 31, 2017.</ref>

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[suffrage|Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900s (First-wave feminism) and the Women's Liberation (Second-wave feminism) movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Second-wave feminism had its roots from [[Betty Friedan]] and [[Simone de Beauvoir]], who both advocated for the abolition of the career of housewife with the false implication that it was comparable to a Nazi concentration camp or a parasite, though they are more akin to the later third-wave feminism, as they fought against what they saw as patriarchal systems designed to hold women down. Another notable feminist was Simone Veil, who was instrumental to legalizing abortion in France. One of her key methods to its legalization was citing her experience as a holocaust survivor.<ref>https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/30/534974403/french-politician-simoneas been highly influenced by postmodern thought, and is a more intellectual form of feminism. It fights against the systems that it sees as detrimental to women as a group, systems designed to keep women in traditional roles, in contrast with second-wave feminism, which fought for equal rights and pay with men in a fight against the traditional status of women as second class citizens. Another distinction made from second-wave feminism is the claimed recognition of the struggles faced by women who are minorities, disabled, immigrants, etc. (intersection theory), as most second-wave feminists focused only on white suburban middle-class able-bodied women. Second-wave feminism, however, was not always a good thing, as it pushed for abortion.

Leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Feminazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

One of the major features of feminism prior to the 1990s was opposition to women being treated as [[sex objects]]. However, some feminists today support women being sex objects, viewing it as a means of empowerment over the traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] family structure and [[conservative values]]. While there is a push for sex-positive feminism (seen in works like ''The Vagina Monologues''), it is not necessarily a push for the objectification of women. Largely, feminists fight against this objectification of women. The opposite of sex-positive is sex-negative, which is predominately used as a snarl word to label criticizers of the porn industry. Ultimately, however, it continues on the same promotion of [[liberalism]] and [[anti-Christian]] values, as feminists today treat [[Women's rights and Islam|Islam's cruel treatment of women]] as a matter of "personal choice". Similarly, the National Organization for Women proceeded to list the likes of [[Hugh Hefner]], the founder of the infamous porn rag ''Playboy'', as a "defender of women."<ref>http://worthy-magazine.com/hugh-hefner-defender-of-women-says-republicans-at-war-with-sex/</ref><ref>http://rosemarycounter.com/hugh-hefner-dirty-old-man-or-radical-feminist/</ref>

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, although feminist leadership was criticized by people such as Christina Odone and Candice E. Jackson for largely failing to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. President.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], a staunch advocate of [[civil rights]] and [[non-violence]] said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 203.</ref>

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for ''American Thinker'', links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and [[Marxism|Marx]], is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the State."<ref>Larrey Anderson, ''The Feminine Mistake'', ''American Thinker'', November 29, 2009</ref>

==Critique==

[[Christine Hoff Sommers]] wrote:
:... The problem with feminism is not that it has fostered achievement for women. Rather it is feminism's attempts to demean the roles and achievements of men and "feminize" boys that are problematic. BOlobally, but they have also fully exposed how confused they are: they are so-called feminists who – for example — furiously insist on control over their own bodies to choose abortion, but they are willing to fully submit to male dominance at the demand of Muslim men to dictate their clothing. And they did so in front of a global audience to boot.}}

==Cultural Marxism==
The Feminist movement is part of the [[Cultural Marxist]] attack on the family. Studies have shown that
*63 percent of youth suicides take place in fatherless homes.
*90 percent of all homeless youth and runaways are from fatherless homes, which is a whopping 32 times the national average.
*85 percent of all children with behavior issues come from fatherless homes, 20 times the national average.
*80 percent of rapists with established anger issues come from fatherless homes, 14 times the national average.
*71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.
*70 percent of those in state-opeAtheism|atheists]].

Feminists who are [[theism|theists]] often belong to religious bodies which practice [[liberal]] theology. In addition, some feminists practice goddess worship. Since atheism rejects theism, atheistic feminism rejects/disbelieves in the existence of God or gods (see: [[Definition of atheism]]).

=== Atheism, women, men and atheist feminism ===

Since most atheists lean Left politically (see: [[Atheism and politics]]) most atheist women are feminists. However, this may not apply to atheist men or apply to a lesser degree, given that a significant majority of atheist are men and that the men's rights movement has many atheist men within it. [[Reddit]] is a popular place for atheists and a Reddit survey found that 94% of Men's Rights Movement supporters indicated that they had no religion (see also: [[Reddit ath who greeted Trump with a topless protest in Paris], By Antonia Noori Farzan, Washington Post, November 12, 2018</ref>

Femen engages in topless publicity stunts/protests. Femen was one of the first radical feminist organizations to gain transnational media publicity.

== Christianity and women's rights ==

See: [[Christianity and women's rights]]

==See also==

*[[Anti-Feminism]]
*[[Me Too Movement]]
*[[Essay:Conservative Women Vs. Feminism]]
*[[Feminism and housewives]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Feminism and reason]]
*[[Feminist hypocrisy]]
*[[Battered woman syndrome]]
*[[Communism and feminism]]
*[[Feminist myths]]
*[[Feminist nitpicking]]
*[[Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins]]
*[[Liberal totalitarianism]]
*[[The personal is political]]
*[[Misandry]]

{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi-ftIGVsCI Dana Loesch Rips Feminists] on [[Louder With Crowder]]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_ESpTudus #SJW Feminist Myths Destroyed by Karen Straughan] on Louder With Crowder
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRj2qMLq8SY Feminism & Fat Pride: The Unholy Alliance] on Louder With Crowder with [[Paul Joseph Watson]]
* [https://www.yout
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Feminism]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]