Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Democratic Party

2007-03-16T21:15:37Z

Balancedandfair2: /* Criticism */

== Criticism ==

When President Bush talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, he was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans against it tended to oppose the move based on states' rights. Also, the comment that Democrats "don't care about American families" is opinion, not fact. It should be removed. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This article has the biggest POV I have ever seen, and it offers no adequate description of the Democratic party. Rather, it is a catalog of what conservatives believe that Democrats believe, and it is filled with slanted descriptions ("The Homosexual Agenda") that do not advance the purpose of the article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "List of conservative misinterpretations of the Democratic party." That would immediately solve the problems mentioned above.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet the [[Republican Party]] page has no such sections on Criticism. At least this site could have the courage to be somewhat fair in their heavily biased presentation of "facts". What a joke. I mean really, is this site trying to look idiotic??

== Some of these? ==

"The Democratic Party, as a political unit, supports abortion, gun control, and organized labor, and the funding of '''some of these''' by taxes."

Seriously. "Some of these?" It's a list of three whole items. Gun control is legislation, unions are a bargaining community of workers, and abortion is a medical procedure. Of these, one needs funding, one can receive incentives, and one either is passed, or is not. If we're going to say "the Democratic party supports taxpayer-funded abortion", well, frankly, we'd be seriously stretching the facts, but we should at least have the courage to be concise and say that. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Global warming

2007-03-16T20:49:34Z

Balancedandfair2: /* Al Gore and politics */

'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== Scientific background ==

The theory of climate change concerns many varied factors, but one of the most commonly cited is that of 'the greenhouse effect'.

This is what occurs when high energy solar radiation loses energy upon entry to the Earth's atmosphere. It then is 'trapped' inside it, thus heating up the Earth, to the extent of approximately 25 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot escape, however, as it has a lower frequency and thus cannot re-penetrate the atmosphere. This is essential for the survival on life on Earth, but proponents of the Climate Change theory argue that this system is being unbalanced by a human-caused (anthropogenic) increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which trap more heat in, raising the overall temperature. They argue that this would have numerous adverse effects; it could cause polar ice to melt, thus raising sea levels, and could cause desertification to already vulnerable regions.

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, despite their credentials, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. The critics of global warming tend to not be scientists, though, and have no valid scientific evidence contradicting global warming, but instead simply look for every possible slip real scientists make. This involves intentionally misinterpreting scientists (e.g. theory, in the context of global warming, is not the layman's definition, or something along the lines of pure speculation, but means something scientists are not 100% sure of yet. In the scientific community, more than 80% likelihood is synonimous with "gauranteed".) Many with their own agendas believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling [[money|profitable]] oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a green agenda that environmentalists agree with. This is clearly not the case, as scientists and environmentalists have never before agreed to this degree on anything, as scientists tend to be quiet skeptics, and environmentalists tend towards radicalism. The phrase "Global Warming" really includes three separate theories.

:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.

:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.

:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns

:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. These record cold spells tend to be in isolated locations, and the arctic and antarctic, telling indicators of global temperature trends, are both heating, and fast. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics. These skeptics are very rarely

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. {{fact}}

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence {{fact}}, though that is not to say there is unanimity.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate.<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref>

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence. However, Al Gore is not on trial here and to attack him is a predictable deflection from the more important issue of whether mankind should be mindful of the planet they inhabit.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. <ref>http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html</ref> It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. {{fact}}

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

== Evangelical view ==
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the [[creation]] of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at this week's meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals. Rev. Richard Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an
offense against God." Cizik warned that "if you put the politics first and make it primary, I believe that is a tragic and fateful choice."

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==

The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals.

Many scientists who have demonstrated support for global warming have been silenced or censored by the United States government. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

Pro-global warming reports follow scientific method, using both a control and experimental group. Therefore, the majority of scientists today accept global warming as fact. <ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for educating the public about global warming. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Educational website that offers information about An inconvenient truth.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate]
* [http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate] Scientific Blogs maintained by scientists in the field

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-16T20:46:44Z

Balancedandfair2: /* Evangelical view */

'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== Scientific background ==

The theory of climate change concerns many varied factors, but one of the most commonly cited is that of 'the greenhouse effect'.

This is what occurs when high energy solar radiation loses energy upon entry to the Earth's atmosphere. It then is 'trapped' inside it, thus heating up the Earth, to the extent of approximately 25 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot escape, however, as it has a lower frequency and thus cannot re-penetrate the atmosphere. This is essential for the survival on life on Earth, but proponents of the Climate Change theory argue that this system is being unbalanced by a human-caused (anthropogenic) increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which trap more heat in, raising the overall temperature. They argue that this would have numerous adverse effects; it could cause polar ice to melt, thus raising sea levels, and could cause desertification to already vulnerable regions.

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, despite their credentials, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. The critics of global warming tend to not be scientists, though, and have no valid scientific evidence contradicting global warming, but instead simply look for every possible slip real scientists make. This involves intentionally misinterpreting scientists (e.g. theory, in the context of global warming, is not the layman's definition, or something along the lines of pure speculation, but means something scientists are not 100% sure of yet. In the scientific community, more than 80% likelihood is synonimous with "gauranteed".) Many with their own agendas believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling [[money|profitable]] oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a green agenda that environmentalists agree with. This is clearly not the case, as scientists and environmentalists have never before agreed to this degree on anything, as scientists tend to be quiet skeptics, and environmentalists tend towards radicalism. The phrase "Global Warming" really includes three separate theories.

:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.

:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.

:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns

:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. These record cold spells tend to be in isolated locations, and the arctic and antarctic, telling indicators of global temperature trends, are both heating, and fast. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics. These skeptics are very rarely

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. {{fact}}

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence {{fact}}, though that is not to say there is unanimity.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate.<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref>

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. <ref>http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html</ref> It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. {{fact}}

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

== Evangelical view ==
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the [[creation]] of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at this week's meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals. Rev. Richard Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an
offense against God." Cizik warned that "if you put the politics first and make it primary, I believe that is a tragic and fateful choice."

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==

The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals.

Many scientists who have demonstrated support for global warming have been silenced or censored by the United States government. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

Pro-global warming reports follow scientific method, using both a control and experimental group. Therefore, the majority of scientists today accept global warming as fact. <ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for educating the public about global warming. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Educational website that offers information about An inconvenient truth.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate]
* [http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate] Scientific Blogs maintained by scientists in the field

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-16T20:39:48Z

Balancedandfair2: /* Global warming advocacy sites */

'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== Scientific background ==

The theory of climate change concerns many varied factors, but one of the most commonly cited is that of 'the greenhouse effect'.

This is what occurs when high energy solar radiation loses energy upon entry to the Earth's atmosphere. It then is 'trapped' inside it, thus heating up the Earth, to the extent of approximately 25 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot escape, however, as it has a lower frequency and thus cannot re-penetrate the atmosphere. This is essential for the survival on life on Earth, but proponents of the Climate Change theory argue that this system is being unbalanced by a human-caused (anthropogenic) increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which trap more heat in, raising the overall temperature. They argue that this would have numerous adverse effects; it could cause polar ice to melt, thus raising sea levels, and could cause desertification to already vulnerable regions.

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, despite their credentials, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. The critics of global warming tend to not be scientists, though, and have no valid scientific evidence contradicting global warming, but instead simply look for every possible slip real scientists make. This involves intentionally misinterpreting scientists (e.g. theory, in the context of global warming, is not the layman's definition, or something along the lines of pure speculation, but means something scientists are not 100% sure of yet. In the scientific community, more than 80% likelihood is synonimous with "gauranteed".) Many with their own agendas believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling [[money|profitable]] oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a green agenda that environmentalists agree with. This is clearly not the case, as scientists and environmentalists have never before agreed to this degree on anything, as scientists tend to be quiet skeptics, and environmentalists tend towards radicalism. The phrase "Global Warming" really includes three separate theories.

:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.

:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.

:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns

:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. These record cold spells tend to be in isolated locations, and the arctic and antarctic, telling indicators of global temperature trends, are both heating, and fast. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics. These skeptics are very rarely

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. {{fact}}

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence {{fact}}, though that is not to say there is unanimity.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate.<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref>

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. <ref>http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html</ref> It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. {{fact}}

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

== Evangelical view ==
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the [[creation]] of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==

The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals.

Many scientists who have demonstrated support for global warming have been silenced or censored by the United States government. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

Pro-global warming reports follow scientific method, using both a control and experimental group. Therefore, the majority of scientists today accept global warming as fact. <ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for educating the public about global warming Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Educational website that offers information about An inconvenient truth.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate]
* [http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate] Scientific Blogs maintained by scientists in the field

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Republican Party

2007-03-16T20:18:03Z

Balancedandfair2: /* Contemporary Party */

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. '''Recently, in what is seen as a slight change in policy direction, the Republican Party has taken on several of the tenets of national socialism.''' " Go Jesus!!!!!

This is getting worse than Wiki.....

--[[User:TK|TK]] 19:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:FYI: "Wiki" refers to the type of software used. Conservapedia is a "Wiki". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

LOL...That's the Trouble with being Ernest. I think people know what I meant. --[[User:TK|TK]] 20:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't we put a "criticism" section in the article, like in the Democratic Party article? Seems to me that would be a fair and balanced approach to the topic.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

It probably won't matter until someone has reasoned, meaningful criticism to add. Being as this is Conservapedia, a serious criticism isn't extraordinarily likely to come from a serious contributor... you'd have it largely used for vandalism, or the criticisms presented would probably be deleted in short order. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Yes, where is the '''CRITICISM''' section?? I respect that the editors want to slant the information to the right wherever possible, but the misalignment between the two party pages only makes this site look like a farse.

''I suspect these will probably be removed by nervous conservative moderators. Nevertheless, here a few common criticisms the Republican Party:''

1) The [[Republican Party]] is often jokingly called "pro-pollution" in that they vigorously fight policies on environmental reforms. This is most apparent in the current [[Global Warming]] debates. These positions are due in large part to the party's long-standing ties with the energy sector and their lobbyists. The current president and his vice president, for example, are both former oil company executives.

2) The current administration has pushed the [[national debt]] to record levels due to excessive spending on its highly contentious war. Such practices go against the GOP's standard positions on big government and high taxes.

Talk:Republican Party

2007-03-16T20:16:07Z

Balancedandfair2: /* Contemporary Party */

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. '''Recently, in what is seen as a slight change in policy direction, the Republican Party has taken on several of the tenets of national socialism.''' " Go Jesus!!!!!

This is getting worse than Wiki.....

--[[User:TK|TK]] 19:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:FYI: "Wiki" refers to the type of software used. Conservapedia is a "Wiki". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

LOL...That's the Trouble with being Ernest. I think people know what I meant. --[[User:TK|TK]] 20:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't we put a "criticism" section in the article, like in the Democratic Party article? Seems to me that would be a fair and balanced approach to the topic.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

It probably won't matter until someone has reasoned, meaningful criticism to add. Being as this is Conservapedia, a serious criticism isn't extraordinarily likely to come from a serious contributor... you'd have it largely used for vandalism, or the criticisms presented would probably be deleted in short order. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Yes, where is the '''CRITICISM''' section?? I respect that the editors wants to slant its information to the right wherever possible, but the misalignment between the two party pages only makes this site look like a farse.

''I suspect these will probably be removed by nervous conservative moderators. Nevertheless, here a few common criticisms the Republican Party:''

1) The [[Republican Party]] is often jokingly called "pro-pollution" in that they vigorously fight policies on environmental reforms. This is most apparent in the current [[Global Warming]] debates. These positions are due in large part to the party's long-standing ties with the energy sector and their lobbyists. The current president and his vice president, for example, are both former oil company executives.

2) The current administration has pushed the [[national debt]] to record levels due to excessive spending on its highly contentious war. Such practices go against the GOP's standard positions on big government and high taxes.

Talk:Republican Party

2007-03-16T20:14:30Z

Balancedandfair2: /* Contemporary Party */

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. '''Recently, in what is seen as a slight change in policy direction, the Republican Party has taken on several of the tenets of national socialism.''' " Go Jesus!!!!!

This is getting worse than Wiki.....

--[[User:TK|TK]] 19:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:FYI: "Wiki" refers to the type of software used. Conservapedia is a "Wiki". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

LOL...That's the Trouble with being Ernest. I think people know what I meant. --[[User:TK|TK]] 20:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't we put a "criticism" section in the article, like in the Democratic Party article? Seems to me that would be a fair and balanced approach to the topic.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

It probably won't matter until someone has reasoned, meaningful criticism to add. Being as this is Conservapedia, a serious criticism isn't extraordinarily likely to come from a serious contributor... you'd have it largely used for vandalism, or the criticisms presented would probably be deleted in short order. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Yes, where is the CRITICISM section?? I respect that this site wants to slant its information to the right wherever possible, but the misalignment between the two party pages only makes this site look like a farse.

I suspect these will probably be removed by nervous conservative moderators. Nevertheless, here a few common criticisms the Republican Party:

1) The [[Republican Party]] is often jokingly called "pro-pollution" in that they vigorously fight policies on environmental reforms. This is most apparent in the current [[Global Warming]] debates. These positions are due in large part to the party's long-standing ties with the energy sector and their lobbyists. The current president and his vice president, for example, are both former oil company executives.

2) The current administration has pushed the [[national debt]] to record levels due to excessive spending on its highly contentious war. Such practices go against the GOP's standard positions on big government and high taxes.

Talk:Republican Party

2007-03-16T20:04:20Z

Balancedandfair2: /* Contemporary Party */

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. '''Recently, in what is seen as a slight change in policy direction, the Republican Party has taken on several of the tenets of national socialism.''' " Go Jesus!!!!!

This is getting worse than Wiki.....

--[[User:TK|TK]] 19:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:FYI: "Wiki" refers to the type of software used. Conservapedia is a "Wiki". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

LOL...That's the Trouble with being Ernest. I think people know what I meant. --[[User:TK|TK]] 20:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't we put a "criticism" section in the article, like in the Democratic Party article? Seems to me that would be a fair and balanced approach to the topic.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

It probably won't matter until someone has reasoned, meaningful criticism to add. Being as this is Conservapedia, a serious criticism isn't extraordinarily likely to come from a serious contributor... you'd have it largely used for vandalism, or the criticisms presented would probably be deleted in short order. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Yes, where is the CRITICISM section?? I respect that this site wants to slant its information to the right wherever possible, but the misalignment between the two party pages only makes this site look like a farse.

Talk:Republican Party

2007-03-16T20:04:01Z

Balancedandfair2: /* Contemporary Party */

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. '''Recently, in what is seen as a slight change in policy direction, the Republican Party has taken on several of the tenets of national socialism.''' " Go Jesus!!!!!

This is getting worse than Wiki.....

--[[User:TK|TK]] 19:45, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:FYI: "Wiki" refers to the type of software used. Conservapedia is a "Wiki". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

LOL...That's the Trouble with being Ernest. I think people know what I meant. --[[User:TK|TK]] 20:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't we put a "criticism" section in the article, like in the Democratic Party article? Seems to me that would be a fair and balanced approach to the topic.[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

It probably won't matter until someone has reasoned, meaningful criticism to add. Being as this is Conservapedia, a serious criticism isn't extraordinarily likely to come from a serious contributor... you'd have it largely used for vandalism, or the criticisms presented would probably be deleted in short order. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Yes, where is the CRITICISM section?? I respect that this slant wants to slant its information to the right wherever possible, but the misalignment between the two party pages only makes this site look like a farse.