Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Marriage

2007-09-26T15:09:52Z

Britinme: /* Attacks on the institution of marriage */

[[Talk:Marriage/Archive 1]]
==Marriage in the Old Testament==
I think we should talk about the various forms of marriage in the Old Testament. Since we allude to the Old Testament by mentioning Adam and Eve, we are opening ourselves up to the charge that we are liberal Christians who pick and choose which parts of the Bible we want to believe. Also, assertions of the "will of God" should be backed up, chapter and verse, with the Word of God. [[User:JeffM|JeffM]] 17:31, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:As someone who would rather be Biblically correct than politically correct, I agree with you. I'll try to write something in the next few days unless someone wants to beat me to it. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 12:14, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Qualifier and citations? ==

At the moment, the article implies that marriage only exists in cultures that have accepted God in the Christian sense. Maybe some sort of qualifier is in order to specify that this article (currently) only deals with the Christian view of marriage.

Additionally, could we get a cite for at least the "Ancient Rome's decline" part at the bottom? Blaming homosexuality and extramarital sex for the decline of a culture is a fairly strong claim and should at least have one authoritative history source to back it up. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:06, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

==Attacks on the institution of marriage==
Just wanted to note here a deeply touching explanation by the Republican mayor of San Diego for his recent change of heart over the issue of gay marriage. I realise that 'evolution' is a dirty word on this website for many people, but IMHO this man is an example of how views on the issue of gay marriage are changing. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SnTwrnKb61Q%20--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Marriage

2007-09-26T15:09:26Z

Britinme: Added a link to discussion.

George Washington

2007-07-14T20:09:34Z

Britinme: /* George Washington's expenses */

{{President
|image=George washington 3.jpg
|seq=1
|party=None
|term_start=1789
|term_end=1797
|vp=John Adams
|previous=
|next=John Adams
|birth_date=February 22, 1732
|birth_place=Westmoreland County, Virginia,
|death_date=December 14, 1799
|death_place=Mount Vernon, Virginia,
|spouse=Martha Dandridge Custis Washington
|spouse2=
|religion=Anglican/Episcopalian
}}

'''George Washington''' '''(February 22, 1732 - December 14, 1799)''' was the unanimously elected 1st President of the [[United States of America]] and the Commander-in-Chief in the [[Revolutionary War]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html</ref> He was also a devout [[Christian]], with his adopted daughter once stating that "if you question Washington's faith, you may as well question whether or not he was a patriot."<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html</ref>

Washington endeared himself to generations of Americans by first refusing to become a military dictator or king and then by voluntarily stepping aside as the leader of a prosperous nation. His precedent was voluntarily followed for 140 years. Towards that end, he sought to emulate the model of the citizen-soldier set by the Roman leader [[Cincinnatus]], a comparison that is truly testament to Washington's greatness, and one that drew worldwide attention and acclaim, even in England, the nation he defeated.<ref>For Lord Byron's poem on the subject, hailing Washington as "the first, the last, the best, the Cincinnatus of the West," see http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/2001/byron0101.html.</ref> The archetype of Washington as the citizen-soldier has become part of America's collective idealization of citizenship, and is immortalized in [[New York city| New York city's]] [[Washington Square Arch]], which depicts Washington the soldier on the left, and Washington the statesman on the right.<ref>For photographic images, see http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GV/GV046WashingtonSquareArch.htm</ref>

He was born on February 22, 1732 to Augustine and Mary Washington. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents, George Washington]], Zachary Kent, Children's Press, 1986. </ref>

[[Image:washington-deleware.jpg|300px|left|thumb|''Washington Crossing the Delaware'' 
painted by Emmanuel Leutze in 1850]]Washington bravely led the colonists in revolt against the unjust British government, and in its place established a new government. Fighting against the vastly more powerful British army, Washington lost nearly every battle in the American Revolution until winning at Trenton and Princeton, and then lost most battles afterwards until ultimately prevailing at Yorktown with the help of a new contingent of French troops.

Washington frequently invoked Christianity in his work. As General, he commanded that chaplains be included in every regiment: "The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-02-22&view=View</ref>

Washington declared in his Inaugural Address: "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential agency." Comments such as this one have led many modern scholars to conclude that Washington was in fact a deist rather than a Christian.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
Washington declared in his Farewell Address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." <ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r106:4:./temp/~r1068i99iE:e2427: Reading of Washington's Farewell Address -- (Senate - February 22, 2000)]</ref>

On November 4, 1752, Washington was initiated into Freemasonry at Fredricksburg Lodge, Fredricksburg, Virginia. He was passed and raised at the same lodge, becoming a Master Mason on August 4, 1753. He later served as Worshipful Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in Alexandria, Virginia. Upon his death in 1799, he was given a Masonic funeral at his wife's request.<ref>http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/washington_g/washington_g.html</ref>

==Parson Weems And The Cherry Tree Story==
In 1809, Mason Locke Weems (1756-1825), usually referred to as "Parson Weems," published a book entitled ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' This book contained many fanciful stories and half-truths, intended to present Washington as a larger-than-life figure. Perhaps the most famous passage in it is Weems' recounting of a story which he attributed to an unnamed "aged lady, who was a distant relative [of Washington], and, when a girl, spent much of her time in the [Washington] family:"

:"When George," said she, "was about six years old, he was made the wealthy master of a hatchet of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping everything that came in his way. One day, in the garden, where he often amused himself hacking his mother's pea-sticks, he unluckily tried the edge of his hatchet on the body of a beautiful young English cherry-tree, which he barked so terribly, that I don't believe the tree ever got the better of it. The next morning the old gentleman, finding out what had befallen his tree, which, by the by, was a great favorite, came into the house; and with much warmth asked for the mischievous author, declaring at the same time, that he would not have taken five guineas for his tree. Nobody could tell him anything about it. Presently George and his hatchet made their appearance. "George," said his father," do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden?" This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all-conquering truth, he bravely cried out, "I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet."—"Run to my arms, you dearest boy," cried his father in transports, "run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree; for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son is more worth than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of purest gold."<ref>British spellings are as they appear in the original text.</ref><ref>Weems, George Mason (1918), ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' [http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/gw/chap2.html Chapter 2: Birth and Education], online at University of Virginia]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22316477&id=6tc56rgYE1YC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=mason+locke+weems&as_brr=1#PPP13,M1 The Life of George Washington] with Curious Anecdotes Equally Honorable to Himself, and Exemplary to his Young Countrymen. 1837, facsimile page images at Google Books</ref>

(Notice that Weems did not represent Washington as calling it "my ''little'' hatchet;" that appears to be a "familiar misquotation.")

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President Washington was grouped in the "Great" group, ranked 1st, with a mean score of 4.92 out of 5.00. <ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

==George Washington's expenses==
Washington was magnanimous enough to lead the Revolutionary Forces against Great Britain for free, saying:

<blockquote>''Sir, I beg leave to assure the Congress that as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to have accepted this arduous employment, I do not wish to make any profit from it. I will keep an exact account of my expenses. Those I doubt not they will discharge, and that is all I desire.''</blockquote>

However over eight years his expenses came to nearly $500,000 – well over $4 million in today's money. He also gave loans to his friends that were never repaid, he bought limes by the crateload (400 at one point), and he treated himself to every "sundry" good available. From July 21-22 1775, he bought a pig, an unreadable number of ducks, "1 dozen pigeons, veal, 1 dozen squash, 2 dozen eggs, hurtleberries, biscuit and a cork cask."

From September 1775 to March 1776, Washington spent over six thousand dollars on alcohol.

Once President, Washington made the same offer to exchange a salary for an expense account. He was politely rebuffed and given a modest $25,000-a-year salary. <ref>http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/washington/</ref>

==Quotes from George Washington==

*The freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. (To THE OFFICERS OF THE ARMY, Head Quarters, Newburgh, March 15, 1783, from ''The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources, '' ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, (Washington: U.S. GPO, 1931-1944)26: 224

*Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ("FAREWELL ADDRESS" in ''Writings,'' 35:229.)

*There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily. (To THE SECRETARY OF STATE in ''Writings,''34:266.)

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Washington, George}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

George Washington

2007-07-14T20:08:52Z

Britinme: Added section on Washington's expenses.

{{President
|image=George washington 3.jpg
|seq=1
|party=None
|term_start=1789
|term_end=1797
|vp=John Adams
|previous=
|next=John Adams
|birth_date=February 22, 1732
|birth_place=Westmoreland County, Virginia,
|death_date=December 14, 1799
|death_place=Mount Vernon, Virginia,
|spouse=Martha Dandridge Custis Washington
|spouse2=
|religion=Anglican/Episcopalian
}}

'''George Washington''' '''(February 22, 1732 - December 14, 1799)''' was the unanimously elected 1st President of the [[United States of America]] and the Commander-in-Chief in the [[Revolutionary War]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html</ref> He was also a devout [[Christian]], with his adopted daughter once stating that "if you question Washington's faith, you may as well question whether or not he was a patriot."<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html</ref>

Washington endeared himself to generations of Americans by first refusing to become a military dictator or king and then by voluntarily stepping aside as the leader of a prosperous nation. His precedent was voluntarily followed for 140 years. Towards that end, he sought to emulate the model of the citizen-soldier set by the Roman leader [[Cincinnatus]], a comparison that is truly testament to Washington's greatness, and one that drew worldwide attention and acclaim, even in England, the nation he defeated.<ref>For Lord Byron's poem on the subject, hailing Washington as "the first, the last, the best, the Cincinnatus of the West," see http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/2001/byron0101.html.</ref> The archetype of Washington as the citizen-soldier has become part of America's collective idealization of citizenship, and is immortalized in [[New York city| New York city's]] [[Washington Square Arch]], which depicts Washington the soldier on the left, and Washington the statesman on the right.<ref>For photographic images, see http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GV/GV046WashingtonSquareArch.htm</ref>

He was born on February 22, 1732 to Augustine and Mary Washington. <ref> [[Encyclopedia of Presidents, George Washington]], Zachary Kent, Children's Press, 1986. </ref>

[[Image:washington-deleware.jpg|300px|left|thumb|''Washington Crossing the Delaware'' 
painted by Emmanuel Leutze in 1850]]Washington bravely led the colonists in revolt against the unjust British government, and in its place established a new government. Fighting against the vastly more powerful British army, Washington lost nearly every battle in the American Revolution until winning at Trenton and Princeton, and then lost most battles afterwards until ultimately prevailing at Yorktown with the help of a new contingent of French troops.

Washington frequently invoked Christianity in his work. As General, he commanded that chaplains be included in every regiment: "The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-02-22&view=View</ref>

Washington declared in his Inaugural Address: "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential agency." Comments such as this one have led many modern scholars to conclude that Washington was in fact a deist rather than a Christian.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
Washington declared in his Farewell Address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." <ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r106:4:./temp/~r1068i99iE:e2427: Reading of Washington's Farewell Address -- (Senate - February 22, 2000)]</ref>

On November 4, 1752, Washington was initiated into Freemasonry at Fredricksburg Lodge, Fredricksburg, Virginia. He was passed and raised at the same lodge, becoming a Master Mason on August 4, 1753. He later served as Worshipful Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in Alexandria, Virginia. Upon his death in 1799, he was given a Masonic funeral at his wife's request.<ref>http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/washington_g/washington_g.html</ref>

==Parson Weems And The Cherry Tree Story==
In 1809, Mason Locke Weems (1756-1825), usually referred to as "Parson Weems," published a book entitled ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' This book contained many fanciful stories and half-truths, intended to present Washington as a larger-than-life figure. Perhaps the most famous passage in it is Weems' recounting of a story which he attributed to an unnamed "aged lady, who was a distant relative [of Washington], and, when a girl, spent much of her time in the [Washington] family:"

:"When George," said she, "was about six years old, he was made the wealthy master of a hatchet of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping everything that came in his way. One day, in the garden, where he often amused himself hacking his mother's pea-sticks, he unluckily tried the edge of his hatchet on the body of a beautiful young English cherry-tree, which he barked so terribly, that I don't believe the tree ever got the better of it. The next morning the old gentleman, finding out what had befallen his tree, which, by the by, was a great favorite, came into the house; and with much warmth asked for the mischievous author, declaring at the same time, that he would not have taken five guineas for his tree. Nobody could tell him anything about it. Presently George and his hatchet made their appearance. "George," said his father," do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden?" This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all-conquering truth, he bravely cried out, "I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet."—"Run to my arms, you dearest boy," cried his father in transports, "run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree; for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son is more worth than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of purest gold."<ref>British spellings are as they appear in the original text.</ref><ref>Weems, George Mason (1918), ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' [http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/gw/chap2.html Chapter 2: Birth and Education], online at University of Virginia]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22316477&id=6tc56rgYE1YC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=mason+locke+weems&as_brr=1#PPP13,M1 The Life of George Washington] with Curious Anecdotes Equally Honorable to Himself, and Exemplary to his Young Countrymen. 1837, facsimile page images at Google Books</ref>

(Notice that Weems did not represent Washington as calling it "my ''little'' hatchet;" that appears to be a "familiar misquotation.")

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President Washington was grouped in the "Great" group, ranked 1st, with a mean score of 4.92 out of 5.00. <ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

==George Washington's expenses==
Washington was magnanimous enough to lead the Revolutionary Forces against Great Britain for free, saying:

<blockquote>''Sir, I beg leave to assure the Congress that as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to have accepted this arduous employment, I do not wish to make any profit from it. I will keep an exact account of my expenses. Those I doubt not they will discharge, and that is all I desire.''</blockquote>

However over eight years his expenses came to nearly $500,000 – well over $4 million in today's money. He also gave loans to his friends that were never repaid, he bought limes by the crateload (400 at one point), and he treated himself to every "sundry" good available. From July 21-22 1775, he bought a pig, an unreadable number of ducks, "1 dozen pigeons, veal, 1 dozen squash, 2 dozen eggs, hurtleberries, biscuit and a cork cask."

From September 1775 to March 1776, Washington spent over six thousand dollars on alcohol.

Once President, Washington made the same offer to exchange a salary for an expense account. He was politely rebuffed and given a modest $25,000-a-year salary. [http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/washington/]

==Quotes from George Washington==

*The freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. (To THE OFFICERS OF THE ARMY, Head Quarters, Newburgh, March 15, 1783, from ''The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources, '' ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, (Washington: U.S. GPO, 1931-1944)26: 224

*Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ("FAREWELL ADDRESS" in ''Writings,'' 35:229.)

*There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily. (To THE SECRETARY OF STATE in ''Writings,''34:266.)

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Washington, George}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Entelechy

2007-07-14T20:02:34Z

Britinme:

A concept in the philosophy of science originated by [[Goethe]].<ref>http://www.eclipse.co.uk/moordent/hparad.htm</ref>

An entelechy is something complex that emerges when a large number of simple objects are gathered together.

An example might be the letters of the [[alphabet]], each of which individually evokes only a few sounds. Together, in the right order, they can form the [[Bible]] or the works of [[Shakespeare]].

==References==

<references/>

User talk:Britinme

2007-07-14T19:59:31Z

Britinme: /* DNA providing instructions */

Let me see what I can do...I can expand on failure rate, but you have to be careful about how you massage statistics. For instance, if 3 out of 100 women will get pregnant using it, that does not mean that after 2 years, 6 out of 100 will. Trying to apply in aggregate is bad stats. If you have someone you know who is good with stats, that would be great.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks - I've left a message on your talk page for you. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:50 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Lobster article ==

Seems very similar to [http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?start=0&t=5744 this posting]. Comments? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:48, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That would be because I posted the original. This is the very long version of something I wrote in a much shortened version for another project completely (related to the QI site, of which I am a moderator). I edited it somewhat for this site, to make it more encyclopaedic in expression, and added some additional info I'd gleaned since then. Lobsters are remarkably fascinating creatures. If there's any copyright on it, it belongs to me. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:57 5 April (EDT).

*OK. Please consider it a compliment: whenever I see that a new article, freshly created, looks like a finished product, I always Google to see whether it could have been copied from somewhere else. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for your editing help. Im a terrible proofreader, and some of it is my own, but much of it is pasted together from various sources.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 21:19, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion poll ==
If you are going to quote an abortion poll, then please quote it correctly. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:44, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you'll find that I did, and that my correction of your selective quotation was then reverted. I suggest altering it to the unarguable fact (see the link) that 62% of Americans would prefer to retain the rights established under Roe v Wade. I have acknowledged in the piece that this is opposed by conservatives and some feminists. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 16:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Breast Cancer==
Ill check it out, prob needs a big rewrite to make it comprehensive. Might takeme a day or two. Thanks..[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Im working on it..helpful so far?--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Probably just editor-error on my part.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Really? Why? You have good conservative creds. The article is good. WHere has he commented?--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I responded there, and asked EdPoor for help.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

My God, he's gonna do it. Is he daft?? Is he so blinded by ideology that he would give false medical information?--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I never woulda guessed you opened such a big can o worms.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Licensing issue with AFSC material ==

Please see: [[Talk:American Friends Service Commission]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[American Friends Service Committee]] ==

Well, I'm embarrassed that you're thanking me for my help... I'm afraid I think that you need to rewrite the article from scratch, rather than copying from the AFSC website, and that the article in its present state should still be deleted, even under the correct title. I'm sorry, but that's what I think. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:39, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly decided to protect the article. That should make everyone happy. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:00, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ann Coulter quotes ==

Sorry about that... they still seem to be there, though. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== abortion study ==
Just saw your comment on my talk page about the Harvard study article (I've been on jury duty the last couple of days). I actually think there are multiple issues with Andy's interpretation of the findings, but the overarching issue is this: he is convinced abortion causes breast cancer, and no amount of contradictory data will convince him otherwise. He (and he's hardly alone) will latch onto any issues with the study to suggest the whole thing is invalid. I do understand the stats pretty well, as I do health-related research and am well-trained in stats. I agree that it's silly to think that nurses wouldn't understand that spontaneous abortion = miscarriage. I'm not looking at the study right now but I'm not even sure if we know which term was used in the questionnaire. It's possible they used miscarriage but use spontaneous abortion in the article because it's medical terminology for a medical journal. Some of the issues that Andy raises are reasonable objections. The sample was not very ethnically diverse, though to accuse them of trying to hide that is also pretty silly. There are 2 more reasonable explanations - most likely they were conserving space to stay within the journal's page limit; also the details on the % of specific minorities don't change the interpretation substantially because there weren't very many of them. The issue of a quarter of the sample not responding fully to the abortion question is also a reasonable objection - it's unfortunate they weren't able to get this information. It is notable that they re-analyzed the data after excluding women who didn't respond to either of the questions and found the same results (last sentence of your quote), and that they found the same if they coded only some of those missing answers as non-abortions. Andy's ignoring these efforts by the authors to address the problem, presumably because they suggest that any confusion or embarrassment that caused people to leave the question blank didn't change the results. I'm not sure how well I addressed your question - if there's anything I didn't get to I'd be happy to try to clarify it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative Party edits ==

Why are you deleting informative material from [[Conservative Party]]? That material was not written by me, but I find it illuminating. Can't you improve rather than simply delete?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ignatius of Loyola ==

Excellent work.
Thanks for the help...

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Checking in.... ==

Praying that all is going well! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:37, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the thought TK. Sadly, my brother died. His funeral was last week. I am still in the UK as my daughter is getting married at the end of July and I won't be home until mid-August. I am able to get online occasionally, but won't be contributing much until I get home again.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:33, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

== Edits to Homo sapiens ==

Some of your edits to [[homo sapiens]] assume that the evolutionary view is correct, i.e. introduce a bias that Conservapedia doesn't agree with. Please try and avoid this. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:48, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== Sympathies ==

My sympathies on the death of your brother. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:41, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you Philip. That's kind of you.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:16, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

==DNA providing instructions==

If you'll look at my contributions, you'll see that I'm a computer programmer with a very specific awareness of what certain codes will make the machine do.

So I'm interested in what a particular pattern in the DNA strand will make a gene do. Do scientists know what pattern, in what chromosome or gene, was responsible for making my daughter's hair blond?

What other human characteristics have been mapped in that much detail? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:08, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

As I understand it, Ed, a gene is a section of a chromosome that codes for a protein or RNA product. What dictates hair colour in particular is the DNA encoding for the amount of eumelanin produced by the body. Eye colour is also well understood. This is a fairly good explanation I think: [http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fgenetics%2Fans_044.html] --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 15:59, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Deoxyribonucleic acid

2007-07-11T14:47:54Z

Britinme: /* Modern understanding */ Will this citation do?

[[Image:799.gif|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Deoxyribonucleic acid''' (DNA) is an [[organic compound|organic]] [[chemical compound]] made up of [[molecule]]s shaped like a [[double helix]], a continuously twisted ladder.

DNA carries the [[gene|genet]]ic coding for the [[protein]]s that form the bodies of living [[organism]]s. All organisms contain DNA, and the DNA of a sexually reproducing organism is a mix of its parents' DNA.

==History==
In the late 19th century [[Friedrich Miescher]], a Swiss [[biochemist]], discovered several different proteins and an unusual [[acid]] in the [[nucleus]] of cells. The acid was named deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. In 1944 two American [[biologist]]s, [[Alfred Hershey]] and [[Martha Chase]] used experiments with [[bacteria]] and [[bacteriophages]] to show that DNA passed [[gene]]s from one generation to the next.

At that time, it was unclear how this simple molecule could hold all the complex information controlling the development of humans, animals and plants. Scientists knew it was made of four chemical bases called [[adenine]] (A), [[thymine]] (T), [[guanine]] (G) and [[cytosine]] (C), plus [[phosphoric acid]] and a [[sugar]]. They also knew that there was always the same amount of A as T and of G as C in cells, but they did not know the rules that controlled the arrangement.

British scientists [[Rosalind Franklin]] and [[Maurice Wilkins]] passed [[X-ray|X-rays]] through DNA to study the patterns made when the crystals diffracted them. From studying photographs of patterns, Rosalind Franklin concluded that DNA must be be a [[helix]]. [[James Watson]] and [[Francis Crick]], working in [[Cambridge]], used this information to help them solve the puzzle of DNA structure. They built a model showing that if A always paired with T and G paired with C, DNA must be like a ladder made of two strands twisted together in a double helix. The sugar and phosphoric acid were the sides of the ladder, and the rungs were the paired bases.

Watson and Crick suggested that DNA could unzip itself into two separate strands, and each strand could act as a pattern to grow a new strand. Crick showed later that each pair of genes worked in a group of three making the code for amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. These groups are called [[codon|codons]]. They make about fifty thousand different types of [[protein]], which make all the different types of cell in the body. Indian biochemist [[Har Gobind Khorana]] made all the possible codons and worked out which codons controlled which [[amino acid]].

If the DNA in one cell was stretched out, it would be about three feet long. Although DNA has a very simple structure, it can carry an enormous amount of information. Scientists do not yet understand all the DNA they see, but in 1991 a project called the [[Human Genome Project]] began to use computers to map the three billion base pairs which make up the 46 human [[chromosome|chromosomes]].

==Modern understanding==
[[Image:818.gif|right|thumb|Structure of DNA.]]
Small parts of DNA called genes serve as the instructions for the body to carry out its functions and give rise to traits such as eye color, hair color, etc. <ref>http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fgenetics%2Fans_044.html</ref> Genes are packaged into [[chromosomes]]. Each individual human being has 23 pairs of chromosomes, where one set is inherited from his/her mother and the other set is inherited from his/her father.

[[Prokaryotic DNA]] is circular (a closed loop), while [[Eukaryotic DNA]] is linear (with ends) with the exception of [[Mitochondrial DNA]], which is circular too. DNA in [[prokaryote]]s usually consists only of one closed loop chromosome.<ref>Campbell, Neil A, et. al. ''Biology''. 6th ed. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings, 2002. 299, 530-31.</ref>

DNA changes account for differences between individuals. However, they can also cause medical problems.

DNA is [[transcription|transcribed]] into [[RNA]], which is in turn being [[translation|translated]] into [[Amino Acids]] that that are used to form [[protein]]s which are the building blocks of all living creatures. [[RNA]] can also be reverse-transcribed back into DNA, which is the called [[Complimentary DNA]] or [[cDNA]].

==DNA fingerprinting==

DNA can help police track down criminals if an attacker leaves something like hair or blood at a crime scene. Everybody’s DNA is unique unless they are identical twins, and the genetic ‘fingerprint’ of this material can be enough to confirm if a suspect is guilty. Genetic fingerprinting can also show if somebody is closely related to somebody else. Archaeologists used samples from living relatives to identify whether bodies found buried in a forest in [[Russia]] were the remains of the [[Tsar]] and his family, killed during the 1919 [[Russian revolution]].

As well as showing how different we all are, DNA shows how much we are all the same. Only one small part of one chromosome distinguishes a boy from a girl. Genes give us different colored eyes, hair and skin, but 99.5% of any human's DNA is in the same order as everybody else’s, and 98.6% is the same as a chimpanzee’s.

Every living thing on earth has DNA that uses the same basic chemicals as human DNA, but because their chemicals are in a different order, the DNA of a worm or a tree encodes for different proteins, and those proteins make different cells. Evolutionists believe that all these cells developed from the first single-cell creatures formed three thousand million years ago, evolving gradually into new species to adapt to their environment. Creationists believe that God created all species the way they are now.

Whatever their individual beliefs, only human beings have learned to analyze and use their DNA, and only humans can learn to use that knowledge wisely.

==External links==
*[http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/trun/artwork/Animations/cloningexp/cloningexp.html Animated guide to DNA cloning]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Genetics]]

Talk:Isaac Newton

2007-07-11T14:36:47Z

Britinme: /* To "Sir" or not to "Sir" */

==Regarding "Newton was a devout Christian who said his discoveries were inspired by God"==
I am not changing anything yet, but my (christian) science book says that Newton had a firm belief in God, but denied the Trinity, and the Deity of Christ. Not exactly the beliefs of a "devout Christian" --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:41, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's a big surprise to me. My understanding is that Newton was a Christian who relied on the Bible daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Relied on the Bible daily? yes. Accepted the Trinity? Definitely not. Whether that makes him a "devout Christian" is presumably therefore very much a defintional issue of how you define Christian. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, we don't need to take sides on that matter. We can just report his beliefs and leave it at that; readers can decide for themselves whether he's Christian by their own standards. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Newton and Falsification ==

I’ve added the following paragraph (or a version of it) at the end of this article a number of times:

:Newton’s Laws stood as “laws” for years after his death, but in 1816 the discovery of Mercury’s anomalous perihelion provided evidence that Newton’s laws did not always correctly predict behavior in the observed, external, world. <ref>Newton’s Laws Falsified 1816[http://www.galilean-library.org/lakatos.html]</ref> It was not until 1919, however, that a series of experiments designed to test [[General Relativity]] provided the scientific community with enough evidence to replace those laws. <ref>Newton’s Laws in 1919 [http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/falsify.html]</ref> Once a theory could better predict the external world than Newton’s Laws, they were fully falsified and replaced as the dominant theory in physics. <ref>Putnam, Dr. Hilary. Mathematics, Matter, and Method. Cambridge University Press. 1980. Page 257 [http://books.google.com/books?id=oEXw5dsrY64C&pg=RA2-PA257&lpg=RA2-PA257&dq=newton+falsify+mercury&source=web&ots=r1RiPYytw2&sig=3f-OYsTqprSmMxgmSgePqsjoXWo]</ref>

The first time it was deleted because I had not sourced it correctly, which is fine. So I sourced it properly and it stood for awhile. Then part of it was deleted because it was to quote the editing comment “Heresy” and “unintelligible”. Since I figured heresy was a bad reason to delete information, especially when properly sourced, I tried to make my comments more intelligible and replaced them. Then part of it was deleted—I am informed because the 1919 experiments have been discredited. But, after researching the matter, I can find no evidence to support this claim (That, of course, doesn’t mean that the evidence doesn’t exist—just that I can’t find it). Even if, however, the 1919 experiments have been discredited that is not, especially relevant to this article, as the 1919 experiments are only important as a turning point in scientific opinion about Newton’s Laws—in particular it marks the date a theory was better able to predict new information than Newton’s Laws could—since then numerous experiments have supported general relativity (though if past is prologue it will soon be on the way out in favor of a better theory itself) but here the only important thing is that it seems to predict better than Newton’s Laws predict and I think it belongs here. However, before I could post this discussion a third contributor deleted the remainder of my paragraph, with only the comment “1816 observation did not falsify Newton”. I’ve linked to two reputable sources for this point, including Dr. Hilary Putnam—second only to Popper himself in the field of philosophy of science—on this point. Whereas the person who deleted the 1816 claim did not provide any evidence to support this deletion—nor can I find any (again, it may be out there, but I can’t find it).

For those reasons, I believe this information belongs in the article—but since it has been repeatedly deleted I’ve chosen to put it on the talk page for now. Can anyone cite a reason to believe this paragraph is false, or explain why it does not belong here? Or can anyone cite to more reputable sources to bolster this paragraph? Or can anyone offer suggested changes that would make it palatable to all parties to this debate?

: I do think that it is pretty absurd to say that some 1816 observation of Mercury falsified Newton. It is true that there was no good explanation for Mercury’s anomalous perihelion, but there were possible explanations that did not involve changing Newton's law of gravity.
: I also don't think that a 20th century philosopher is a reliable source on this point. If an 1816 observation really falsified Newton, then there should have been physicists in 1817 saying that the observation proves that they should all stop relying on Newton's laws. There weren't then, and there aren't now. Newton's laws are still useful and have not been "fully falsified".
: Yes, General Relativity has superceded Newtonian gravitation, but the 1919 observations did not provide the necessary evidence. The 1919 observation was sold as proof to the public at the time, but was actually inconclusive.
: On another topic, why is Newton called "Sir"? I wouldn't think that a conservative American encyclopedia would respect some silly British nobility title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::If you read the Putnam (who I find to be an incredibly reliable source when it comes to the history of science, as his job is to study the history of science and draw well reasoned conclusions based on that history, and as he is highly regarded in his field –which he would not be if he made basic errors)article you will see that you are making the exact same point he is—only he draws a different, and, I think, better grounded conclusion. Science is not a monolithic beast, and it does not move quickly. That is why, though the 1816 observations falsified Newton’s Laws (and remember one wrong prediction means the whole theory is falsified and a new theory must be sought to replace it), science was slow to react. Further, Newton’s Laws still were better predictors than any other theory (until relativity hit the scene in 1919) so they were still used—and in fact are still used as they generate the right result for the objects big enough to see on the surface of the earth moving at a speed we can see them—but that does not mean that the laws were not falsified, just that they are still useful.
:::Of course if you have a better date for when relativity superseded Newton’s laws that is what you ought to add to the article rather than deleting information and replacing it with nothing (For if Newton’s laws were superseded, then they were falsified, and that information belongs in the article). I still have seen no evidence, however, offered that the 1919 experiments were flawed (again, I’m open to the idea that they may be flawed, but would like some evidence of that—especially since I have evidence to the contrary).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 22:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Putnam is entitled to his opinions, but I just don't see how an 1816 anomaly could have falsified Newtonian gravity. There were other possible explanations for that anomaly, such as an unknown asteroid or an oblateness of the Sun. Those explanations might not have required any change to Newtonian gravity.
:::: Here is a good account of the 1919 eclipse. [http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102462] It says of Eddington's announcement:
:::::The reaction from scientists at this special meeting was ambivalent. Some questioned the reliability of statistical evidence from such a small number of stars. This skepticism seems in retrospect to be entirely justified. Although the results from Sobral were consistent with Einstein’s prediction, Eddington had been careful to remove from the analysis all measurements taken with the main equipment, the astrographic telescope and used only the results from the 4-inch. As I have explained, there were good grounds for this because of problems with the focus of the larger instrument. On the other hand, these plates yielded a value for the deflection of 0.93 seconds of arc, very close to the Newtonian prediction. Some suspected Eddington of cooking the books by leaving these measurements out.
::::At any rate, this is an article on Newton, not relativity or philosophy. The exact date in which physicists became convinced of a non-Newtonian explanation for Mercury's precession doesn't seem very relevant to me. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Thank you for the link, it is most informative (I've not had a chance to read it fully but so far quite informative) but your second point is, I think spot on, I hadn't really realized that that was your objection. I thought the objection was to the claim that Newton's laws had been falsified, not that the exact date was off.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well, here in the USA he's respected for scientific treatments, and we're awfully glad he's been [[knighted]] but it doesn't get him called Sir Isaac in [[American English]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Newton was never falsified. That is nonsense. His laws of motion work perfectly well for slow stuff. They work great for planets in orbit.

Einstein's work simply refined an excellent theory into a brilliant one. We can't aim a spaceship well enough to care whether we use Newton's (simple) laws or Einstein's. The matter crosses the line from engineering into theoretical physics.

Einstein's work led to [[atomic bomb]] theory and helped defeat the Japanese in WW2 - which saved a lot of Japanese lives, by the way. Let's try to get all this in perspective. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Reference==

<references/>

==Inspired Kant==
The article says:
:Newton is often seen as one of the greatest scientists of all time due to his contributions, which inspired Kant to create the philosophical concepts of the categorical imperative and the synthetic a priori.
Is this a joke? What does Kant have to do with anything? Newton inspired some great science -- who cares about whatever mediocre philosophy he might have inspired? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Harsh! Not sure where you got educated, but Kant's work is a pillar of western philosophy. Argue whether it should be in the article, but you're gonna be by yourself if you want to discredit Kant's enormous contributions to philosophy. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 13:38, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== To "Sir" or not to "Sir" ==
I have copied the following conversation from [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s talk page, as I think it makes sense to have a record of it here.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my comment, as you misunderstood [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]'s use of the term "peer". I guess we need to back up a bit. In Britian, knighthoods are given for exceptional achievement or service to the nation, much like the USA gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Newton was the first to be made a knight for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield. (From doesgodexist.org: "In 1705, Queen Anne knighted him, Sir Isaac Newton. It was the first knighthood for scientific discoveries rather than deeds on the battlefield or in government." [http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec01/IsaacNewtonAndGodsLawOfGravity.html]) Thus Newton was given his title for his *body of work*, which of course included topics like gravity and calculus. I understand that *you* have no respect for such awards. Indeed, there is some controversy over modern versions, even in Britian (see [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/world/main590022.shtml]). However, I think it's simply not true to say that *No* American has any respect for British nobility titles - see [[User:Robledo|Robledo]]'s examples below. Given that Newton's achievements were so great as to be awarded an honor that had previously been given only for military prowess, I think the "Sir" is worth keeping. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Honorary knighthoods (accepted & thus I'm guessing respected...)

* George Bush
* Ronald Reagan
* Colin Powell
* General Norman Schwarzkopf
* Bob Hope

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm

Any more sweepingly daft generalisations to make? :P --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you've made it for me. I've never heard any American call any of those men "sir". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Naturally....none of them are British citizens. Read the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm source], son....third paragraph. *sighs* --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's because it is inappropriate for an American to use such a title.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm] Newton, however, was not American, thus the use of the title is appropriate. I know this stuff is complicated. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Exactly. To put it in context. "Bono" will never be "Sir Bono" (aside from the fact that his real name is Paul Hewson) because he is not a British citizen. So he can never be a "Sir". However, Newton ''was'' a British citizen, or a subject of the queen (or king), if you will. So he should be referred to by his correct title. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My students are fond of this song about Sir Issac - it's in MP3 format. [http://www.acme.com/jef/singing_science/newton-160.mp3]--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I see that someone put "Sir" back in. I disagree with this. In the USA, he is primarily known as Isaac Newton, not Sir Isaac Newton. Even assuming that he was knighted based on the merits of his scientific work, it is no more significant that an honorary degree or receiving some academic prize. No more significant to anyone outside of England, anyway. You wouldn't call someone "doctor" just because he got an honorary degree, and no American would call someone "sir" just because some king gave him some sort of honor. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:My my, you disagree with a lot of things. Also, knighthoods are different, and especially back then. I call Isaac Newton Sir Isaac Newton, because he earned it, and he would have wanted himself called that, and we should defer to that as a means of respect-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::I've always refered to him and known him as Sir Isaac Newton, but silly me, I got that from all my physics text books here in America. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I note that we call Margaret Thatcher 'Lady' Thatcher in more than one article. Does the 'American's aren't interested in British nobility' rule not apply to the good Baroness then? Newton provided every bit as much service to science as Thatcher did to politics, and arguably had a longer-lasting influence. I say give him his 'Sir'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:02, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Having not read this discussion (until now), I changed it to "Sir Isaac Newton" in the first sentence, only to have RSchafly revert it without explanation. However, I continue to believe that the first reference should be to "Sir Isaac Newton". What weight Americans give to British titles is irrelevant, if only because Conservapedia is not (any longer) as exclusively American as it was, such as dropping the requirement for American spelling. And this is a similar issue. If articles on British/Australia/etc. topics are appropriately spelt using British/Australian/etc. spelling, then articles on British people should use their British titles.

Unless someone offers a good rebuttal to that, I will reinstate the knighthood title.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:08, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

: The article already says Newton got knighted. The title is meaningless to anyone outside England. Newton is in CP for his scientific and mathematical accomplishments, not for holding some silly title. To put "Sir" on his name would be like putting "Herr Doctor Professor" on the names of German scientists. Actually it would be worse. Please don't put "Sir" back in. You can boldface the name if you wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:28, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

::''The title is meaningless to anyone outside England.'' I disagree; lots of educated people around the world understand such titles. ''Newton is in CP for his scientific and mathematical accomplishments, not for holding some silly title.'' Why is the title silly? If I had done the work he did, I'd be quite happy to be honored in that way, especially if no one before me had been honored for scientific/mathematical work. It must have been a huge honor for him. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:03, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

::I'm outside England, and it's not meaningless to me. It's not like putting "Herr Doctor Professor" on a name; it's like putting "Dr." or "Rev." on a name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:09, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::Thomas Jefferson referred to Sir Isaac Newton by his title, in a letter written on February 25, 1809 to the French author Monsieur Gregoire (''The Writings of Thomas Jefferson'' (H. A. Worthington, ed.), Volume V, p. 429), where he writes: ''Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others.'' If it was good enough for Jefferson, it's surely good enough for Conservapedia.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 09:45, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::: I think that "Sir" is a lot less meaningful and relevant than "Dr" or "Rev". Most readers have no idea what would qualify someone to acquire the title of "Sir". But even if I agreed with you, CP and other encyclopedias do not even usually use "Dr" and "Rev". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]
:::: On the contrary, "Sir" is a lot ''more'' meaningful and relevant that "Dr." or "Rev.". The latter can be "bought" (by plenty of hard study, etc.) by anybody will sufficient will to achieve them, and there are literally thousands of them in any one country. But "Sir" is a title that is reserved for someone who has achieved a lot more than just studying a few years—often it's bestowed for a lifetime (almost) of effort. It is a much higher honour than "Dr.".
:::: If most readers have no idea, we educate them with an article. That issue is easily solved.
:::: Other encyclopedias:
::::* My World Book encyclopedia on disk has its article titled "Newton, Sir Isaac".
::::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_newton Wikipedia] refers to him in the first line as "Sir Isaac Newton".
::::* [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108764/Sir-Isaac-Newton Britannica Online] has it's article on him titled "Sir Isaac Newton"
::::* [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ne/Newton-S.html Columbia Encyclopedia] has it's article titled "Newton, Sir Isaac".
::::* [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ne/Newton-S.html Encarta] is the only exception that I found, not using that title at all.
::::If we follow the norm for other encyclopedias, we should change the name of the page to include "Sir", but I'm not proposing going that far.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Yes, I'd expect the Encyclopedia Britannica to use "Sir" as it pretends to be a British encyclopedia. This example should be added to the list of biases in Wikipedia. I tried another name in the Columbia Encyclopedia, Elton John, [http://www.bartleby.com/65/jo/John-Elt.html] and it does ''not'' use "Sir". It only says, "He was knighted in 1997."
::::: Sir may be a higher title than Dr, but how do you know it hasn't been bought? I don't know much about British titles, but I would assume that many or most of those titles were given out for political and other reasons. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:03, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::If anything Britannica is a British Encyclopedia pretending to be an American encyclopedia. And what is biased about Wikipedia showing Newton by his correct title?
::::::Most of your arguments have been shown to be wrong, so you now resort to a "how do you know" type of argument and state an assumption about the subject, whilst in the same sentence acknowledging your ignorance of the subject!
::::::You've failed to provide an adequate arguments, so I'm putting his title back in.
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:38, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::: What argument was shown to be wrong? Show me one person outside of England who even knows what the title means. I looked up the Jefferson letter. It seems to be part of some sort of sarcastic put-down of negro literature. It doesn't make a good argument in this case. Why do you want to put the title in? It is redundant, at best. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:43, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::RSchlafly - you've missed the point of why I quoted the Jefferson letter. I quoted it to show that an American, closer in time to Newton than we are now, routinely used the title when he referred to Newton. The subject of the letter is irrelevant. The use of the title is relevant. The fact that you don't know what it means is an acknowledgement of the limits of your understanding rather than Jefferson's, unless you claim that your understanding of these issues is superior to his.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::What arguments were shown to be wrong? These:
::::::::* ''The title is meaningless to anyone outside England''
::::::::* ''I think that "Sir" is a lot less meaningful and relevant than "Dr" or "Rev".'' (Not actually an argument, but a personal opinion.)
::::::::* ''CP and other encyclopedias do not even usually use "Dr" and "Rev".'' (Not directly shown to be wrong, but the implication that other encyclopedias do not show the "sir" title was shown to be wrong.)
::::::::* ''To put "Sir" on his name would be like putting "Herr Doctor Professor" on the names of German scientists.''
::::::::I've already answered the one about people outside England. And why to people ''inside'' England not count?
::::::::Why do I want to put it in? Because it is the proper thing to do; it is like part of his name. And how is it redundant if it hasn't been used already? Perhaps a later use of it might be made redundant by this, but this use is not. Why do you want it ''out'', other than a personal opinion about its relevance?
::::::::Now what arguments of yours have I missed, other than arguments from personal opinion?
::::::::And why do you revert before making an attempt at getting agreement, given that we've had three editors here in the last few days (and others earlier) arguing for including the title, and only you arguing against it. Why can't the majority view be applied?
::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Philip, your edits are dishonest here. You labeled one, "Revert to consensus view as per talk page", when in fact there is no consensus here. You say I was shown to be wrong on four points, but the only contradictions to what I said was that I said "The title is meaningless to anyone outside England" and you said "I'm outside England, and it's not meaningless to me." But all you've said about what it means is "often it's bestowed for a lifetime (almost) of effort". If you really know what it means, then write an article about it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:52, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Further to the above list of Americans accepting honorary knighthoods:

*General Tommy Franks KBE 2004
*Reverend Billy Graham KBE 2001
*General Wesley Clark KBE 2000
*Bob Hope KBE 1998
*George Bush GCB 1993
*General Colin Powell KCB 1993
*General Norman Schwarzkopf KCB 1993
*Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft KBE 1993
*Ronald Reagan GCB 1989
*J. Edgar Hoover KBE 1950
*Dwight D. Eisenhower GCB 1945
*General George C. Marshall GCB 1945
*General George S. Patton GCB 1945
*Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitiz GCB 1945
*General Alexander Vandegrift KBE 1942
--[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] 16:22, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

: Let us know whether any encyclopedias call these folks "sir" in the first sentence. I say that CP should not call any of them "sir". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::As discussed above, it is not appropriate for ''American'' citizens who have been knighted to use the title "Sir". It is only appropriate for ''British'' citizens who have been knighted to use the title "Sir". Thus "Sir Elton John" and "Sir Paul McCartney" are correct, but "Sir Bob Hope" or "Sir George Bush" would not be correct. No encyclopedia should call an American citizen "Sir". --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:00, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

::In any case, a person's rank is not generally considered part of their name: the article is on [[Billy Graham]], not [[Reverend Billy Graham]]. Only royalty (and some Catholic officials) have their rank mixed in with their name: [[Pope Gregory XIII]], [[Richard Cardinal Cushing]]. But [[Sir Paul McCartney]]? No! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

::: With the Pope, it is not just a title. It is also his job description, and what makes him a notable person. In the case of Newton, it is just an honorary title that is meaningless to most people. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:47, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

RSchlafly, I don't appreciate people calling me "dishonest" when there is another possible, explanation, that being that I am simply ''incorrect'', in this case, about the meaning of the word "consensus". However, I'm not even incorrect. "Consensus" does not mean, or at the very least does not have to mean, "unanimous agreement", it means "general agreement" or "majority of opinion". So my edit comment was not only not dishonest, it was correct.

That a knighthood was not meaningless to me was not the only refutation of your claim. Hsmom also answered your claim. And the other four points I listed were also answered, including showing that four out of five other encyclopedias refer to Newton as "Sir". And remember that it was you who raised "other encyclopedias" as a comparison. In return, you've left a number of my questions unanswered (such as why you want it omitted).

What relevance does a list of Americans with ''honorary'' knighthoods have to a debate about a non-American with a "real" knighthood? People with ''honorary'' knighthoods are ''not entitled to use the title "sir"''.

Ed, I don't consider a person's title part of their name, yet I've ''often'' seen others refer to them that way, saying things like "his name is Rev. Smith" and the like. So often, in fact, that I've sometimes wondered if I am right to make the distinction. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

: Philip, I suggest looking up "consensus" in a dictionary. What is your position now, that "sir" should always be used with men who got real knighthoods, but not with those who got honorary knighthoods? How about Elton John and Paul McCartney? My position is that the title is inappropriate for an encyclopedia based outside of England. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:10, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:: I ''did'' look "consensus" up in a dictionary. Several in fact. That's why I said what I did—I do my research before making claims like that.
:: Yes, "sir" should always be used with men who got real knighthoods (obviously not for honorary knighthoods, for reasons explained above), but ''perhaps'' allowing an exception in special cases, such as where they did not use it themselves.
:: Your US-centric position is inappropriate for an encyclopedia that is trying to be more than just an American encyclopedia, and continues to fail to recognise that knighthoods apply in more than just England. And your position is not even merely US-centric, as even US-based encyclopedias mostly recognise knighthoods.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:59, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I think there is a bit of confusion here. The appropriate distinction is not between honorary and "real" knighthoods. I think that all of the knighthoods we are discussing here are honorary. Knighthoods should not be confused with hereditary titles, which is a completely different thing. As discussed above, it is ''not appropriate'' for '''American citizens''' who have been knighted to use the title "Sir". It is ''only'' appropriate for ''British citizens'' who have been knighted to use the title "Sir". This is why "Sir Elton John" and "Sir Paul McCartney" are correct, but "Sir Bob Hope" or "Sir George Bush" would not be correct, even though Bob Hope and George Bush have been knighted. This is why no encyclopedia should call an American citizen "Sir". I think a sensible approach for us would be to call the article "Isaac Newton", with a redirect (or whatever the proper term is) from "Sir Isaac Newton", and to leave the "Sir" in the first sentence. --Hsmom 10:00, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: This confusion is just more evidence that the title is meaningless to most people. Philip claims to be outside England, but he is obviously some sort of anglophile who wants to draw attention to the British monarchy. He even uses British spellings. Newton's accomplishments stand on their own merit, and do need a sign of approval from some long-dead queen. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:00, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::On the contrary, this is more evidence of your apparently-blinkered US-centric views. As can easily be seen from my user page, I am Australian, and I use ''Australian'' spelling. I don't just "claim" to be outside England, I '''am''' outside England, I've never been to England, and I have to go back about six generations to find ancestors (at least on the paternal line) who emigrated from England.
::::: Americans are not "most people"; just because it is meaningless to you and to who knows how many other Americans (but clearly not all; most others debating this point are American) doesn't mean that it is meaningless to "most people".
::::: If you are at liberty to claim that I am some sort of Anglophile, then I guess that I am at liberty to claim that you are an Anglophobe who wants to denigrate the British monarchy.
::::: Now, the majority of editors debating this are clearly on the side of including the title, and you have not advanced much in the way of a reason to oppose it, other than subjective claims such as it being "meaningless", so can we just let this issue go and accept that the majority have spoken?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I see, you're not an Anglophile, you just like Australian spelling! You're funny. Well, you live in a country that puts the British queen on its money, and you go out of your way to credit the British monarchy. You're welcome to your opinions, but I really think that they don't belong on the Isaac Newton page.
:::::: The "sir" title is not just meaningless to me and most Americans; it is apparent that you don't know what it means either, as evidenced by your bogus distinction between real knighthoods and honorary knighthoods. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:43, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::: How do you go from me ''using'' Australian spellings (because I am Australian) to ''liking'' Australian spellings? And how does that make me "funny"? Your ignorance of non-American matters continues to show. Australia does ''not'' put the British queen on its money. It puts the ''Australian'' queen on its money. Yes, it is the same individual, but she is on the money because she is the Australian queen, not because she is the British queen.
::::::: Just because I'm not an expert on all the fine details of knighthoods does not mean that I don't know what a knighthood means. And I don't agree that my distinction was bogus. I think that Hsmom's description was not entirely accurate. As I understand it, it's not true that ''Americans'' cannot use the title simply because they are Americans. What I believe to be the case is that people who are not citizens of a country that adopts the British honours system (which Australia no longer does, but used to) can only be given honorary knighthoods, and honorary knighthoods are not entitled to use the title "sir". So the ''effect'' of Hsmom's comments were basically correct, even though technically she didn't have it exactly correct, I believe.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Rayment, I fear my above contribution may have derailed your discussion somewhat. I shall attempt to rectify matters below:

Results obtained by searching "sir" on FOXNews.com (first two pages only):

*[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun15/0,4670,ClarkArtDonation,00.html Clark Art Institute Gets Big Donation - The Clark Art Institute, long known as a home for French and American paintings, is making room for a $90 million British invasion thanks to a donation from the foundation of '''Sir Edwin Manton'''.]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun13/0,4670,ObitHerbert,00.html '''Sir Wally Herbert''', Polar Explorer, Dies]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281040,00.html Reference to "'''Sir Howard Stringer''', head of Sony Entertainment" - two-thirds down the page.]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May02/0,4670,BritainDaVinciTune,00.html Team: Music in 'Da Vinci Code' Chapel - The 15th century chapel, 10 miles from Edinburgh, was built by '''Sir Gilbert Haye''' and '''Sir William Sinclair''' and is steeped in the traditions of the Knights Templar and Freemasonry.]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun08/0,4670,AntarcticExplorerHuts,00.html Global Warming Threatens Antarctic Base - New Zealand's Everest conqueror and Antarctic explorer '''Sir Edmund Hillary''' has been vocal in supporting the preservation of the Scott hut, along with another occupied by a fellow British polar explorer, '''Sir Ernest Shackelton'''.]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May13/0,4670,PeopleRowling,00.html Potter Author Adds to U.K. Reward Fund - The newspaper said the amount Rowling offered was larger than the $495,000 pledge from Topshop owner '''Sir Philip Green. Sir Richard Branson''' offered $198,000.]

If Fox News sees fit to accord these figures (both historical and contemporary) their full title, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be so churlish as to deny Newton his. --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] 16:13, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks for that. I wasn't being critical of your earlier list, so much as RSchlafly's (invalid) use of it to make his point. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

: What has Fox News got to do with anything? I thought that Fox News was owned by some Australian! He could be some friend of Philip's for all I know, and have the British queen's image on his money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:21, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
::Now THAT was funny! Actually [[Rupert Murdoch]] was born here but is now an American citizen, I'm pretty sure. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:43, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==
in order to agree with the cited material
:'Newton formulated the classical theories of mechanics and optics and invented calculus Eric Weisstein's World of Math years before Leibniz. However, he did not publish his work on calculus Eric Weisstein's World of Math until afterward Leibniz had published his. This led to a bitter priority dispute between English and continental mathematicians which persisted for decades, to the detriment of all concerned.'[[http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html]]

== Newton’s theory invalid ==
Reginod, I notice that you now say that Newtonian has been "falsified" and is "no longer scientifically valid", based on some opinion of some philosopher. It appears that you justify this based on me citing a philosopher saying that Freud's work was unscientific.

I don't agree with this. First, Freud's work really was unscientific. Newton's work was scientific, and continues to be used successfully by scientists today. Second, Putnam was presumably making some point about how one theory was more accurate than another, but your sentence is very misleading. Third, I cited Popper to show that Freud was never scientific, not that it was superceded by another theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is why I asked you about this issue, because we have been over this before. If philosophers of science are valid on what is science then my support for a claim which is well enough known to be true that it doesn’t really need a reference is a valid one. I think the reference is as valid as you use of Popper (If not more so, since Putnam builds on Popper’s wok and is, probably, closer to the truth than Popper was).
:Let me respond point by point.
:To your first point: Putnam is clear Newton has been falsified, his theories are no longer good science—it is irrelevant that they were good science—Aristotle’s claims about biology were good science when he made them, and to some extent they can still be used successfully today but we would not say they are good science. Successful use is not the same as good science. Newton’s claims do (and did) not accurately predict the new data that they should have been able to predict if the theory was correct, they are no longer valid science—sure they work and sure they still predict some behaviors, but they do not predict all motion as he clamed they did.
:To your second point: that is not Putnam’s point at all. Putnam is describing the process by which formerly valid scientific theories are replaced—Newton’s theory is an excellent case study of this. First a theory is formulated, it describes the available data. If successful it predicts new data. Then, data begins to be collected that falsifies the theory. But, the theory is too well entrenched to be replaced immediately—more data has to be collected before the scientific community accepts that the theory that has worked so well for them is falsified. So, step three is that more data is collected—in small pockets—and the dominant theory is repeatedly modified to account for the new data (think about how complex planetary motion had become before Newton). Finally, a new theory is proposed. It is first rejected because it goes against the old theory and the old theory is too cherished to be easily replaced, then it is discovered that the new theory not only accounts for all the available data (which the old theory couldn’t quite do), it predicts, accurately, new data. So the new theory finally comes to replace the old one as good science.
:Additionally, I take your claim that I have misleadingly quoted Putnam very seriously. You have accused me of academic dishonesty and yet given the language of the sentence (“presumably”) you have not even bothered to check the source I have given. I have clearly explained why my sentence is not misleading, what the source was saying, and that shows why my sentence was a reasonable (concise) statement of the source. I expect, therefore, a public retraction of the false attack against my character.
:To your third point: “X is not scientific” or “X is not science” is a claim that can be supported by experts in the field of philosophy of science according to what you said on the Freud talk page. The reason the philosopher of science rejects a thing as science seems irrelevant. If they know what is and is not science/scientific, it hardly matters whether or not the thing was science we are taking about what is not what was.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I still don't agree. Why don't you also say that relativity is invalid, because of dark energy or quantization? Maybe the reader could read Putnam's book and figure out what he meant, but to just declare that Newtonian gravity is invalid is very misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I refuse to continue any discussion with you until you apologize for your baseless accusations and personal attacks against me.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I did not make baseless accusations and personal attacks against you. I did not say that you "misleadingly quoted Putnam"; you didn't even quote him at all as far as I can see. I did not accuse you of academic dishonesty. I did say that "your sentence is very misleading", and that is still my opinion. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::You are quite right, I should have said you have accused me of misstating Putnam’s position, as opposed to misquoting (I was loose in my usage there, and if that confusion is all that is keeping you from retracting your attack, I hope I have cleared it up).
:::::However, it is quite clear that you have accused me of academic dishonesty, even if that was not your intent. If I misleadingly referenced a source I am guilty of academic dishonesty, if you are saying that my reference does not support my claim you are attacking my integrity. You have not shown any evidence that you have so much as looked at the source I gave, and yet you say I am misleadingly referencing it. That is a personal attack, and it is unjustified. Please apologize, retract the claim, or support your position.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Take a chill pill, Reginod. The critique here is over one sentence - it is not about you as a person.

The idea concerns the role of truth and its relation to the scientific method, as well as to how science corrects itself or refines theories.

Let us take a step back and look at the matter at hand:

Are Newton's laws of motion "valid"? Were they invalidated or "disproved" by the Lorentz equations, Einstein's new theories, or [[Quantum physics]]?

Can we say that Newton's Laws apply only to "slow-moving" objects (say, less than 10% of the speed of light)?

There is a philosophical question, as well (perhaps in [[Epistemology]] or [[Methodology]], if you want to get technical). How well do we actually know anything? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, if the criticism were not about me as a person, RSchlafly could have easily said, “I’m sorry, you took that as an attack against your person, I did not intend it as such” and then reprased the offending sentence. Instead he chose to repeat the attack verbatim, KNOWING that I found it personally offensive. I think it is highly reasonable to take offense at the repetition of a charge that the person making the charge knows is offensive. If it were not intended to be offensive, he would not have repeated it.
:As to your deeper questions, I had, at one point, detailed answers to those questions in the article and was told that they were not relevant to the subject of the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Then write about [[Scientific method]]; [[History of science]] (or physics or astronomy); [[Epistemology]]; or [[Methodology]]. The matter you are addressing here might be beyond the scope of the present article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I’m not really interested in those fields, but I appreciate the offer. When I first got here this article was badly deficient, and I had some knowledge on the subject so I added what I knew and tried to move on (this particular example was a stock example when I was teaching and was pared with one about Darwin and I’m not touching Evolution with a 10-foot pole). What I added was deleted (I seem to recall the reason given was that it was heresy), I restored it. It was deleted again, I added more and better references and restored it. And then it was deleted because philosophers of science aren’t good sources for the sorts of claim I was using them to support. So, I moved on, no need to engage in an edit war. Then it turns out (see [[Freud]]) that philosophers of science ARE good sources for the types of claim I was using them to support, so I restored the claim—in a good faith attempt to make this article more closely reflect reality (and I hasten to add that throughout all this not a singe reference has been given for the claim contrary to the one I was making). And for my efforts to improve the site I get attacked. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Missing items==

Why is there nothing in this article about light or about Newton's laws of motion? Why on earth is it locked? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Charles Babbage

2007-07-11T14:17:50Z

Britinme:

Many paragraphs in this article appear to be copied verbatim from the referenced sources and should be re-written. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 23:37, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Would you care to elaborate on that? I wrote the original article (though it has been edited since) and I took care to rewrite anything other than what was directly quoted from and attributed to the sources in the article, which were mainly the words of Babbage himself (not copyrightable) and a short snip from Engineering.com. I've just had a look through, in case I wasn't careful enough, and can't see 'many paragraphs...verbatim', but maybe I have just overlooked them and you could help by pointing them out. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10:17, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Albert Einstein

2007-07-08T16:43:42Z

Britinme: /* Einstein and the A-bomb */ grammatical correction

[[Image:600px-Albert Einstein Head.jpg|right|thumb|250px]]
'''Albert Einstein''' (1879-1955) was a theoretical physicist. He was born in Ulm, in Württemberg, Germany in a Jewish family. During his stay at the Swiss Patent Office Einstein produced much of his remarkable work. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's degree. He won the [[Nobel Prize]] for his work on the Photoelectric Effect in 1921. <ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/</ref> Einstein immigrated to the United States in the late 1930s to take the position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton; upon the urging of a colleague in physics, recommended that President Franklin D. Roosevelt develop an [[atomic bomb]] project. <ref>[http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html]</ref> He later regretted this and became a passionate pacifist. In 1952, he was offered the Presidency of Israel, but he turned it down. Einstein collaborated with Dr. Chaim Weizmann in establishing the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Albert Einstein died on April 18, 1955 at Princeton, New Jersey at the age of 76.

==Anecdotes==
*IN 1898, young Albert Einstein applied for admission to the Munich Technical Institute and was turned down. The young man, the Institute declared, "showed no promise" as a student. By 1905, he had formulated his special [[theory of relativity]]. [http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html]
*Einstein came to Princeton University in 1935 and was asked what he would require for his study. he replied: "A desk, some pads and a pencil, and a large wastebasket to hold all of my mistakes." [http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html]
*THE SCULPTOR Jacob Epstein tells this story:
*:"When I was doing Professor Albert Einstein's bust he had many a jibe at the Nazi professors, one hundred of whom had condemned his theory of relativity in a book.
*:"Were I wrong," he said, "one professor would have been enough." [ibid]

== Works ==
Einstein contributed to the theory of a [[Special Relativity]] and the theory of [[General Relativity]]. He also contributed to the study of Photoelectric Effect, Brownian Motion and Bose-Einstein Statistics. He was critical of quantum mechanics and has proposed the EPR-Paradox in attempt to point out spooky aspects of the theory. The last fifteen years of his life were spent in unsuccessfully searching for a [[Unified Field Theory]].
Einstein's best-known scientific work is his 1905 papers on [[Special Relativity]]. The theory of relativity had already been published by [[Hendrik Lorentz]] and [[Henri Poincaré]]. Einstein's contribution was to give a description of the Lorentz-Poincare theory without reference to the luminiferous aether, and to clarify some of the physical consequences of the theory.

Einstein then wrote a series of papers applying relativity to gravity using the mathematics of Riemannian Geometry, resulting in [[General Relativity]]. Much of the actual mathematics of general relativity was worked out by Marcel Grossman, David Hilbert, and others. Einstein's main contribution was to give an alternate derivation of the field equations, and to apply them to explain an [[anomaly]] in the advance of the perihelion in Mercury's orbit.
Arthur Eddington popularized General Relativity by publishing an explanation of it and by attempting to prove the theory experimentally in a dramatic test. Eddington embarked on a highly publicized trip into the Atlantic Ocean off Africa in order to observe the bending of [[star]]light passing nearby the [[Sun]] during the total [[solar eclipse]] of May 29, 1919. Eddington returned with a declaration that he had proven Einstein's theory of [[General Relativity]], making Einstein extremely famous<ref>On November 8, 1919, for example, the ''London Times'' had an article headlined: "The Revolution In Science/Einstein Versus Newton." Two days later, ''The New York Times''' headlines read: "Lights All Askew In The Heavens/Men Of Science More Or Less Agog Over Results Of Eclipse Observations/Einstein Theory Triumphs." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/]</ref>, when in fact he had selectively used data to attain this result. No Nobel Prize was given for relativity.

In April 2007, NASA reported early results from their satellite Gravity Probe B, confirming 'to a precision of better than 1 per cent' Einstein's assertion that large objects such as the Earth distort the fabric of space and time.<ref> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2057529,00.html</ref> The Gravity Probe B project, a joint mission between NASA and Stanford University, used the most precise gyroscopes ever manufactured to detect minute distortions in the fabric of the universe.

Einstein compared the effects of large objects on space and time to the way that a large ball placed on a sheet of rubber stretches the material and causes it to sag, and drew the analogy with the way stars and planets warp space-time. A smaller ball rolling along the sagging fabric will be drawn towards the larger ball, in the same way that the Earth is drawn towards the sun, but will not fall into it as long as it continues to move at sufficient speed. This was a change in thinking from the Newtonian cosmos, in which gravity was viewed purely as an attractive force between bodies.

Robert Massey of the Royal Astronomical Society said: 'From the most esoteric aspects of time dilation through to the beautiful and simple equation, E=mc², the vast bulk of Einstein's ideas about the universe are standing up to the test of time,'

===E=mc2===
Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 says that mass and energy can turn into each other. It was first published by H. Poincare. E stands for [[energy]], m is [[mass]], and c is the [[speed of light]]. So, if you increase the energy of a substance, for example by heating it, it gains a minute amount of mass. It was later realized that if you split an atom apart, as in a nuclear explosion, it loses a tiny amount of mass and you release a huge amount of [[energy]].

The connection E=mc2 to nuclear energy is not as direct as pop culture sometimes represents. Einstein did not discover the huge energy available from nuclear reactions. Early workers in radioactivity, such as Ernest Rutherford, understood clearly that the natural radioactive decay of radium released quantities of energy that could not be explained by chemistry, and were much larger than those of chemical reactions. Neither did Einstein originate the key idea that made nuclear energy a possible weapon or a practical energy source. That was Leo Szilard, who acknowledged having been inspired by a 1914 H. G. Wells novel. Szilard discovered or invented the chain reaction (and patented it). What Einstein did was to provide a theoretical framework that accounted for the release of energy, and a quantitative theory that was used by the scientists at Los Alamos who designed and built the bomb.

Energy binds together the parts of an [[atom]], including the [[nucleus]]. The nucleus of an atom is tiny, but very little mass could release a huge amount of energy. When one nucleus splits apart, it splits other nuclei around it. This is called a [[chain reaction]].

===Cosmological Constant===

Einstein revised his work on [[General Relativity]] to include a 'fudge-factor' which he termed the [[Cosmological Constant]]. He was trying to account for the apparent steady-state nature of the universe.

[[Edwin Hubble]], in whose name [[NASA]]'s famous [[Hubble Space Telescope]] is named, later convinced him otherwise. At one point he had Einstein actually making direct observations alongside him, and Hubble's findings showed conclusively that the [[universe]] was indeed expanding, as predicted by certain solutions of GR's field equations in the absence of a cosmological constant. Einstein recanted his original [[philosophy]], and accepted as true the notion of a changing universe having a definite [[begin]]ning.

He later said of his Cosmological Constant, "It was the biggest blunder of my life."

An interesting end-note on this term: Principle investigators from [[Princeton University]] first published findings in 1998 apparently revealing an accelerating expansion for the universe<ref>http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html</ref>. Because this initially seemed like it might be a sort of 'anti-gravity' effect (similar in concept to Einstein's original notion), it briefly became quite popular for scientists to dub the phenomenon the 'Cosmological Constant' as well. For more information, see: [[Dark Energy]].

== Writings ==

*Special Theory of Relativity (1905)
*Relativity (English translations, 1920 and 1950)
*General Theory of Relativity (1916)
*Investigations on Theory of Brownian Movement (1926)
*The Evolution of Physics (1938)
*About Zionism (1930)
*Why War? (1933),
*My Philosophy (1934)
*(The World As I See It) (1934)
*Out of My Later Years (1950)

''...the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart.''

== Honors ==
Einstein received honorary doctorate degrees in science, medicine and philosophy from many American and European universities.

He won the Nobel Prize in 1921. His citation did not mention relativity.
*"It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste, to select a few individuals for boundless admiration, attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them. This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular assessment of my powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque." [http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html]

Einstein told a friend in 1930, "To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself." [http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue38/einstein.html]

He gained the Copley Medal of the Royal Society of London in 1925 and the Franklin Medal of the Franklin Institute in 1935.

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 <ref>[http://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/variousthings.html#president]</ref> but respectfully declined because he believed his life-long scientific attitude of objectivity made him an inappropriate candidate for such a high political position, he was also strongly opposed to nationalism.

In 1999, he was named "Person of the Century" by "Time" magazine.

==Einstein and the A-bomb==
In 1939 research done by several leading scientists including [[Enrico Fermi]] regarding chain reactions of nuclear fission prompted [[Leo Szilard]] to persuade Einstein to write a letter to President <ref>[[Roosevelt]] [http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml]</ref>, to warn the President about the possibility of nuclear weapons and that Nazi [[Germany]] had already taken an interest in this technology.

Einstein himself had never been involved in the [[Manhattan project]]. Later he condemned the use of nuclear weapons.

==Controversy Surrounding His Death==
Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, then a pathologist, performed the autopsy on Einstein several hours after his death. Upon completion, Dr. Harvey removed the brain and eyes <ref>NPR, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4602913]</ref>. There is controversy about whether or not Harve had consent from the Einstein family to remove the brain and keep it.

The brain was photographed and sliced into 240 pieces in order to be preserved and further studied. Harvey hoped some uniqueness would be discovered that distinguished Einstein's brain as "genius".

Although he sent pieces away for further study, the bulk of the brain remains with Harvey.{{fact}}

==Religion==
[[Image:Einstein inshul1930.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein wearing a kippah in a Berlin Synagogue, 1930.|300px]]
There is some controversy surrounding the religion of Albert Einstein.
He explained his religious views to Time magazine in this manner: “I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." <ref>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1607298,00.html</ref>

Einstein also said
<blockquote>
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>,
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"The fanatical atheists, are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>
</blockquote>
and
<blockquote>
"science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" <ref>http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Life-Universe-Walter-Isaacson/dp/0743264738</ref>
</blockquote>

Which shows that while Einstein rejected the traditional personal God of Judaism and Christianity, he did believe in the existence of higher power(s).

==Views On Judaism and Zionism==
[[Image:Einst 22.jpg|right|thumb|Einstein with [[David Ben-Gurion]].|300px]]
In 1920, in a letter to the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
"I am neither a German citizen, nor is there in me anything that can be described as ‘Jewish faith.’ But I am happy to belong to the Jewish people, even if I do not consider them in any way God's elect."
</blockquote>
Einstein do not view fellow Jews as co-religionists, but as tribal companions.
Einstein was made an honorary citizen of [[Tel Aviv]] during his visit in 1923.
In 1952, Einstein was offered the position of president of Israel by the 1st prime minster of [[Israel]] David Ben-Gurion, but declined the offer. Before his death in 1955, Einstein wrote to the Zionist leader Kurt Blumenfeld:
<blockquote>
"I thank you, even at this late hour, for having made me conscious of the Jewish soul."
</blockquote>
Einstein willed that all his scholarly work be archieved in Israel's Hebrew University after his death.

Whatever his views on Zionism were, Einstein has always expressed his anti-war views and staunchly opposed nationalism:

"He who joyfully marches to rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism on command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so a base of action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

==Einstein on Germany and the rise of Hitler==
In 1944, in a message to a bulletin run by Polish Jews in New York, Einstein wrote
<blockquote>
The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [Mein Kampf] and in his speeches made his shameful [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding.
</blockquote>

== False attributions ==
Many ideas and quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. He did not invent very much of we now call special relativity. The Principle of Relativity, that the law of physics should be the same in all inertial frames, had already been published before Einstein. He did not discover the Lorentz transformation, or the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism. He was not the first to propose that the speed of light is constant for all observers, or that the aether is superfluous and not observable. He was not the first to recognize and explain how special relativity causes an ambiguity in defining simultaneity. He did not combine space and time into a four-dimensional spacetime in his special relativity papers until others had been doing it for a couple of years.

Einstein was not the first to observe the equation E=mc2<ref>H. Poincare published it in 1900. [http://www.serve.com/herrmann/ein.htm]</ref> as a consequence of special relativity, or to foresee its application to nuclear binding energies or antimatter annihilation. He did not foresee a nuclear chain reaction and had to be persuaded about the possibility of an atomic bomb.

Einstein did not originate the idea of using metric tensors to reconcile gravity with special relativity. It was not his idea to describe gravity in covariant equations, and he published papers supposedly showing that it was impossible. He did not discover the Lagrangian formulation of general relativity, and was not the first to publish the field equations. He did not foresee the expansion of the universe, the possibility of black holes, or dark energy.

Einstein never developed a unified field theory of any significance. He published papers on quantum mechanics, but always insisted on a deterministic interpretation.

Many quotes are falsely attributed to Einstein. Here are a few. "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left." "We use only 10% of our brains." "Evil is simply the absence of God." "Originality is the art of concealing your sources."

==References==
<references/>

*"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921"[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/]
*"On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf]
*"Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?"[http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
*Michael Paterniti, Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain
*"Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein" [http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html]
*"Confusion regarding Einstein's Religion"[http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2004/04/confusion.html]

[[Category:Nobel laureates in Physics]]
[[Category:Physicists|Einstein, Albert]]

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2007-07-08T16:34:02Z

Britinme: /* Comments */

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK
:Banning a product ''does'' make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.
:Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

:::::The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the "experiment" was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate ''after'' it came in, if it was so bad?
:::::The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were [[liberal]]?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.
:::::I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it ''did'' work—the theory ''did'' "hold water" when applied.
:::::Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the ''desperate'' alcoholics could still get it. But most people—they had voted for it, remember—weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The ''relatively'' small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious "quality" was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.
:::::Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is ''mostly'' effective, and is good for ''most'' people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating "given suitable enforcement" to "given suitable funding", my experiences lead me to believe that ''properly'' educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
:::::::I agree with the education angle, but educating people that it's bad, and legalising it, sends contradictory messages. Both education and banning are needed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Philip - using that logic, presumably you'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned then? As far as I can see from the evidence, the harm caused by these substances is, if anything, more than the harm caused by marijuana. And yet we deal with the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco by educating people into knowledge of their harmful effects, and acknowledging that (with alcohol at any rate) there are positive benefits to be gained from a moderate and rational use of it.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Isaac Newton

2007-07-06T13:45:14Z

Britinme: /* To "Sir" or not to "Sir" */

Talk:Euthanasia

2007-07-06T13:39:53Z

Britinme: New page: Euthanasia is opposed by religious leaders because it involves people acting directly to terminate a life before its natural end, despite the suffering that a terminally ill person may be ...

Euthanasia is opposed by religious leaders because it involves people acting directly to terminate a life before its natural end, despite the suffering that a terminally ill person may be undergoing. It is held that this privilege belongs to God, whose will should prevail in the matter of suffering and death. And yet we prosecute for cruelty people who do not terminate the life of an animal who is in terminal suffering. Do we assume that God has no will concerning the suffering or life span of animals? It just strikes me as an anomaly.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 09:39, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Britinme

2007-07-05T22:16:40Z

Britinme: /* Sympathies */

Lambeth Conference

2007-07-04T18:44:52Z

Britinme: New page: The Lambeth Conference is convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the most senior archbishop in the Anglican church, every ten years. He invites over 800 archbishops and bishops of a...

The Lambeth Conference is convened by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], the most senior archbishop in the Anglican church, every ten years. He invites over 800 archbishops and bishops of all ranks from the global Anglican Communion to meet for worship, study and conversation. It is called the Lambeth Conference because the Archbishop of Canterbury's palace is at Lambeth, in London, England.

Bishops from other churches held to be 'in communion' with the Anglican church, including bishops from the Episcopal church in the United States and a number of guests from other faiths, are also invites.

The wife of the Archbishop of Canterbury invites the spouses of the invitees to an independent gathering, the Spouses Conference, held in parallel with the Lambeth Conference.

The current Archbishop of Canterbury is Archbishop Rowan Williams.

The next Lambeth conference will be held in July 2008. <ref>http://www.lambethconference.org/</ref>

==References==

<references/>

Contraception

2007-07-04T18:36:34Z

Britinme: Added section on church teachings

'''Contraception''' (Lat. ''against conception'') generally refers to devices or substances that prevent pregnancy (birth control). There are many different [[Methods of contraception|methods]], each having its own level of effectiveness and safety. [[Abstinence]], of course, obviates the need for any form of birth control.

Although some believe that contraception should be a part of education to minimize unwanted pregnancies and the contraction of HIV AIDS, the reality remains that contraception encourages sexual behavior and promiscuity {{fact}}. Those who choose to have more than one sexual partner do so at their own risk and, in a sense, bring the burdens of disease and unwanted pregnancy on themselves. Therefore education and encouragement of contraceptive devices is not useful. <ref>God, The Holy Bible</ref>

==Church teachings on contraception==

The Roman Catholic church teaches that all recreational intercourse (serving no procreational function) is a sin against God and therefore prohibits the use of contraceptives to Catholics.

The Anglican church regards sexual love as an essential way for a husband and wife to express and strengthen their mutual love, citing Genesis 2:18 'It is not good that the man (Adam) should be alone' in support of this. At the [[Lambeth Conference]] of 1930 a resolution was passed stating: ''Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method.'' It continued by saying that if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, ''the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles.''

However, by the Lambeth Conference of 1958, contraceptive use among most Anglicans was widespread and a resolution that year stated that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents ''in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife''. <ref> http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/smte.html#contraception </ref>

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Contraception

2007-07-04T18:23:09Z

Britinme: /* POV */

==Travesty==

This is a pity. I spent a lot of time creating a good article. I didnt use diagrams or naughty words. I didnt tell young people to go out and fornicate. I provide sound medical information. You obviously don't want to know. What about married couples who may wish to know this info?
You should be ashamed of yourself. Good luck.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 09:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

===WHAT??!!===
Andrew Schlafly just cut all the information about contraception out of the contraception page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 18:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Crap--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 18:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:How shocking. Statistics are apparently unencyclopedic. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 19:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

===Formatting===
Did it as a bulleted list, formatting help can be found here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing].

Can't see this page lasting though, abstinence is the only form of contraception doncha know. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Expert opinion ==

Just a heads up, I am planning on doing extensive editing for content here, as it is needed. If you question my qualifications, please check out my profile and discussion page. Thanks.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The few bizarre citations used are low on primary statistics, and are from the UK. I am including NIH and other American statistics and sources.

Intimacy is an OPINION (inherently); it probably doesnt require citation, rather, an explanation of it's potential importance.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Im also removing the dangerous and ridiculous claim about contraception aiding sexual assault. That's like saying crowbars are likely to cause break-ins, or AK-47s are likely to cause mass-murder. Citing a case where evidence of an assault was missing because of condom use is not helpful. You would need regression analysis to show that condoms increase crime, etc.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Palm, I look forward to your edits on this one. I hope you can flesh out my analysis of how the pill works - I think I'm right, and at any rate, it's already better than BillOReillyFan's version about how the Pill "destroys" the organs :-/-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Call me "Pal". You're not too far off; what really ends up happening is the prevention of ovulation, and, as with Plan B, if fertilization does take place, prevention of implantation. We probably need to divide the section into "barrier methods", hormonal methods, IUDs, and ?other. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that division is a great idea. It might run afoul of Andy's idea of obscenity, but I'll defend you, for whatever that's worth :-). So Pal-MD: are you a doctor? How awesome to have a real doctor edit some of the... errr... erroneous (?) articles on this site!-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, Im a professor of medicine. See my talk page--it includes a somewhat surreal dialog with ASchlafly about my qualifications. Good amusement value though.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:46, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: I find what Andy DOESN'T say almost as funny as what he DOES say. He refuses to talk, for instance, about most things relating to [[user:Conservative]]'s failure to do useful things on this site. He also refuses to address issues of bias, or commentaries on the compatibility of evolution and religion... and I did see that thing on your talk page, I forgot about it though! Good times.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I probably won't get that far with this tonight, as it's 11pm here, but when I return to this tomorrow, I assume it will be hacked to bits. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

BillFan, thanks for your help with the clean up. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note that much of the above discussion is historical. I have specifically invited Andy to find a contributor to help with the last section.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Re: effectiveness of various methods: ''"Rhythm method" (also sometimes referred to as a method of "timed abstinence")''
:*Do you know what they call women who rely on the Rhythm method? [[/answer]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Where do people get a BAND at four [[o'clock]] in the morning?
That's a good thing, right?[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 17:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Perfect ==

This article is perfect and completely unbiased. Thanks to whoever fixed it up!

:: Oh-kayyyy... this is obviously some new definition of perfect that I've never come across. Abstinence is the best form of birth control is it? Well, yes, provided it works. However, the likelihood of it actually working means that it is less effective than almost any other means you care to imagine. This is really like claiming that condoms are 100% effective provided that (a) they are worn and (b) they do not split, leak or slip off.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Plea for tolerance ==

So, if this "encyclopedia" is to avoid the topic, well, then it needs a new name. Obviously, feel free to delete any well-referenced, well-researched information from an [[User:Palmd001|expert]] you wish, but don't pretend that you are doing it for accuracy or any other legitimate reason.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 19:05, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:As discussed elsewhere, there is a dispute over whether it's wise to tell kids (1) We don't think you have the willpower to remain abstinent till marriage so (2) since you're going to fornicate (3) you better use condoms, etc.

:Conservatives feel this encourages (4) fornication itself and (5) concomitant problems of unwanted pregnancy and STD's.

:Writing which looks neutral but nevertheless provides copious alternatives to abstinence effectively sends messages #1 and #2 above, conservatives believe. Conservatives also believe that '''partisans are well aware of this''' and (6) have the aim of promoting fornication and (7) don't really care at all about out-of-wedlock pregnancy or STD's. (Not 100% of each group mentioned - I was speaking in general.)

:I would therefore check with Andy before adding a "methods of contraception" section to this article. I imagine what senior staff want here is a critique of it, not a how-to guide.

:If you'd like to work with me on a "Strategies to prevent STD" article, I'm happy to help. It could examine the effectiveness of various campaigns and curricula. As you probably have heard, there's a raging controversy over whether (8) abstinence-only curricula are more effective or (9) "abstinence is best but if you're gonna do it anyway use this" curricula are more effective. Part of the controversy no doubt comes from partisan refusal on the Liberal side to give an inch to the abstinence camel. There are some people who would rather die than give up fornication. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::I can see how describing various forms of contraception could be considered sending messages (1) and (2) to kids in a sex ed class (I don't ''agree'' with it, but I can see how you could think it). This isn't a sex ed class. It's an article about contraception. I don't see how describing various forms of contraception in an article about contraception could possibly send messages to anyone about anything, beyond describing various forms of contraception. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Kids aren't the only ones to have sex, and a married couple may be interested to know what contraception choices they have. Moreover, having seen the results of an abstinence only education (over 5 girls in my sister's junior class of 50 boys and girls have already dropped out of school due to being pregnant), I think that it is prudent to educate on the types of birth control available. Advocating use of birth control, abstinence or other forms, is different and far more important than advocating not having sex due for whatever personal reason. I personally am a fan of the "yay abstinence, but this is birth control so use it if you're going to have sex" education, as I would rather multiple people have sex and not get pregnant or STIs than one person get an STI or pregnant. Anyway, that's just my two cents plus a little. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 07:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll just repeat my suggestion above starting a [[Methods of contraception]] article and embellish it a little. A careful and accurate examination of the effectiveness of (1) the methods themselves and (2) campaigns to teach these methods would be really good reference material for an encyclopedia to supply. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Statistics==

Sorry if I've inadvertantly gone wrong here. The population statistics are from the US government census website I linked to. The assumptions about fertility and sexual activity were, I thought, on the conservative side, but you're right that I can't cite a source for those. The figures for failure rates were at the lower-than-probable end of the ones you gave in the earlier section. The reason for including the section was that there is often a misunderstanding of the term 'failure rate', and I wanted to expand on the implications of that. Please by all means improve on my contribution, but I think it's an expansion of this article that needs making. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:15 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me see what I can do...I can expand on failure rate, but you have to be careful about how you massage statistics. For instance, if 3 out of 100 women will get pregnant using it, that does not mean that after 2 years, 6 out of 100 will. Trying to apply in aggregate is bad stats. If you have someone you know who is good with stats, that would be great.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I think I'm going to leave it for somebody with a better knowledge of statistics than me in that case. I don't want to post something that's wildly inaccurate, but I do think that there is a popular conception (not a deliberate pun, honestly) that a 1% failure rate means that there will hardly be any unintended pregnancies if the contraception is used reliably, and as I understand it that's not the case, once you start looking at large numbers of women. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:45 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Scope of the article==

Colin's latest change indicates an overlap with the topic of [[Sex education]]. Let's form a strategy for dealing with all the topics relating to this. I'm starting a list below, which should then be moved to someplace like [[Conservapedia:Sex education topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Sex education]] topics:
*[[contraception]]
*[[abstinence]]
*"abstinence-until-marriage" education programs
*"[[comprehensive sex education]]"

:Wouldn't a category be more appropriate? And the only reason I changed the entry is because there is no question that abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::At the risk of contradicting myself, I must admit that there *is* a question about whether abstinence is the only completely effective means of birth control. The question centers on whether it is '''realistic''' to expect anyone to abstain from something as pleasant and "delicious" as sexual intercourse. The idea that it is an irresistible urge (which it is abnormal to resist) is actually quite widespread and prevalent. For example, I know of an army officer who said, "If a man won't f---, he won't fight." And you know about marching cadences taught in basic training, don't you? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps a bit crude, but all the same, well put Ed. Some editors here seem to be desperately trying to give the impression that liberals have a monopoly on common sense. I dispute that. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::While refraining from sex may be irresistible, when used, abstinence is completely effective. After all, unless the form of contraception is being used, one cannot expect it to do its function. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The "when used" part is the key to the issue. Thank God conservatives don't have a monopoly on common sense. -Ed
:::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? Or are people that stupid these days? But if you feel that the "when used" qualifier is needed, by all means, put it in the entry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 08:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::(Late retort) There are many stupid people and much stupidity about contraception. For instance, some people think they can rely on withdrawal and/or rhythm, and there's a medical term especially for members of the fair sex who do: [[/answer|(see the surprise answer here)]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Exactly Ed "when used", [[Capital Punishment]] is 100% effective - no one ever reoffends. Why not apply it for all felonies and misdemeanors? Would people cease committing misdemeanors. Not likely - if we killed them all the economy would collapse. It would cause more harm than good. Damage or harm reduction are the the (pragmatic?) buzzwords.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 08:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Is it not implied that use of the form of contraception is necessary for its benefits? My understanding (PalMD, please correct me if this is wrong) is that contraception failure rates are generally quoted as pregnancies per N people using them for M time, as actually used, and that some or many of the 'failures' reported are actually failures to use the method properly or at all. IE, you find a woman who says "I use condoms for birth control" and check back in a year to see if she's pregnant; if she is, you chalk that up as a condom failure, even if it's because she skipped the condom one night. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 14:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is correct, in general. It is similar to the "intention-to-treat" analysis in RTCs. Some studies include information on"properly and regularly uses", but most rates are quoted as above. Condoms, for instance, are 85% effective in general, much more when used as directed, with spermacide.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Have there been any studies on abstinence's failure rate with that methodology? I remember hearing about some studies on teen sexual behavior following abstinence-only education vs. broad-knowledge education, but that's not quite the same thing. (As a side note, I'm ''still'' having trouble getting my head around the fact that some schools simply don't teach some of this stuff; I went to a Catholic high school, and even they tought us what the options were. Yes, the had a lot of focus on failure rates, health problems, and discouragement-by-grotesquery, not to mention the church teachings, but as far as I know they taught every FDA-approved artificial method plus abstinence and the rhythm method.) --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "use" or "reliance" has to include what I'll call the "compliance factor". Do seatbelts prevent injury? In my case, yes. I never get behind the wheel without putting on my seatbelt. Even to move a parked car to another spot in a lot. I have a high compliance factor.

Pills you take every day are hard to forget in a 'moment of passion' but how often can we expect a high school [[American Pie|broncin' buck]] are going to remember to slip a [[condom|love glove]] out of his wallet at the crucial moment? Contrariwise, how often can we expect Little Miss Sunshine to recite "no glove, no love" and stick firmly to it when she's stuck in his hot embrace? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==Roll-back==

Sorry, Crocoite, I jittered on the trigger.

:No problem Ed. Crocoite 22:39, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Obviously something went on between Crocoite and Ed Poor (as can be seen in the history). Since I seem to have missed out on the discussion, can I ask why we chose the current page, which has one ify source ("God, the Holy Bible"), over this page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contraception&oldid=214707], which is more enclopedic, less preachy, and actually cited? (And before anyone gets in a huff, I'm calling the Bible in this case an "ify source" because it's not properly referenced; without chapter and verse there's no way to know the claim is actually in the book). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==POV==
This article is written from a purely Catholic POV. Protestants do not have a problem with the use of contraception within marriage, so it is incorrect to say that for Protestants recreational sex within marriage is sinful. Can it be rephrased to take account of that?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:39, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Make the change. Adding a reference would be helpful. Crocoite 13:25, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::No, the Bible clearly states, "be fruitful and multiply," which is entirely negated by any use of contraception. [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:28, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Many people (most people, actually) use contraception as a way of spacing children, not to avoid having them completely. The Bible doesn't say 'be fruitful and multiply without limit'. Whatever your personal views about the Bible though, this article does not reflect Protestant denominational teachings on contraception. The Anglicans issued a statement in favour of contraception at the Lambeth Conference as long ago as 1930. The statement was carried by a majority of 193 to 67. This was followed in 1931 by statements by some American Protestants. I will add something on this into the article.A reasonable reference from a solid source seems to be [http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/smte.html#contraception] --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:23, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Contraception

2007-07-02T16:39:01Z

Britinme:

Homo sapiens

2007-07-01T12:40:21Z

Britinme: Added sections on tool use and social organization

{{Taxonomy|name=Human|image=Billy_sunday.jpg|kingdom=Animalia|phylum=Chordata|subphylum=Vertebrate|class=Mammalia|order=Primate|family=Hominidae|genus=homo|species=sapiens}}
Humans, or human beings, are classified by biologists as '''''homo sapiens''''', from the [[Latin]] ''homo'' meaning "man", and ''sapiens'' meaning "wise",<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Homo+sapiens&searchmode=term Online Etymology Dictionary]</ref>. The human brain is over twice the volume of a chimpanzee’s brain and differently organized, giving an improved language capacity. The evolution of the larynx gives a physiological capacity for speech. Brain development gives humans the power of abstract reasoning and a capacity for self-analysis. Consciousness is of unknown origin; speculations include being an emergent property of a complex brain and the mind existing independently of the body.

Humans are characterized by a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This mental capability, combined with a body suitable for standing erect such that their upper limbs are free to manipulating objects, allows humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans now inhabit every continent including [[Antarctica]], with a total population of over 6.5 billion as of 2007.

Humans have more hair follicles than chimpanzees, their nearest living relatives, but shorter finer hair in most body areas makes this hard to see. Hair and skin colour varies according to the amount of melanin, a pigment that helps protect skin from the sun. Originally an evolutionary adaptation to climate, pigment variation is now found globally.

Fossil evidence appears to show that "modern" humans have been around for approximately 130,000 years<ref>Alemseged Z, Coppens Y, Geraads D (2002). "Hominid cranium from Omo: Description and taxonomy of Omo-323-1976-896". Am J Phys Anthropol 117 (2): 103-12.</ref>.

==Tool use==
Because humans are bipeds with opposable thumbs, they can create tools more skilfully than other species. This has helped them to perceive themselves as the dominant species. Humans inhabit almost all areas of the planet, using technology to overcome inhospitable environments. They are the only species to deliberately control fire to cook food.

Human thirst for knowledge and tool-building capacity has led to many ways of investigating the universe. The scientific method is objective; subjective methods using tradition, creation, introspection and speculation include religion, philosophy, art and literature.

==Social organization==
Human self-expression has led to complex competitive and co-operative social groups. Some revolve around abstract symbols or arbitrary land divisions associated with group history, others around perceived genetic or philosophical differences. Humans may belong to several groups simultaneously. Competition for resources plus primate territoriality leads to wars, and the human capacity for tool-building to improved technology with which to fight them. The rise of globalization and information-sharing, especially about human effect on our shared planetary environment, holds a hope that as a predator species we will avoid rendering ourselves extinct, as we have done so many other species.

== Longevity ==
Humans in modern times have been known to live to ages of just over 100 years, although much greater ages have been recorded in the distant past.
According to certain Creationist and Jewish views, God has limited the lifespan of man to 120 years. ({{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=6|verses=3}} and the lifespan of [[Moses]] in {{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=34|verses=7}}), although other creationists believe that the Genesis verse is not referring to an age limit for humans.

== The Origins of Man according to Creationists ==

A large number of [[Christian|Christians]], Jews, Muslims and [[Creationism|Creationists]] have postulated that Homo sapiens were created in [[God|God's]] image on day 6 of [[creation]].[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2313]
:''And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.'' ([[Genesis]] 1:26-27)

:''And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'' (Genesis 2:7)

The first man was [[Adam]].
:''And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.'' (Genesis 2:15)
The first woman, [[Eve]], was made from one of his ribs.
:''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.'' (Genesis 2:22)

Because of the sinful nature of man about 2350 B.C (according to the [[Young Earth Creationist]] view) [[God]] sent a [[Great Flood]] which annihilated all the people on Earth except for the then 600 year old [[Noah]] and his family. All people alive today are descendants of [[Family of Noah|Noah and his family]].

==The Origins of Man according to Evolutionary Biologists and Anthropologists==

In more recent times rationalists, [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and scientists in the fields of biology and more specifically, anthropology, have postulated that humans have been around in anatomically modern form for approximately 130,000 years<ref>Alemseged Z, Coppens Y, Geraads D (2002). "Hominid cranium from Omo: Description and taxonomy of Omo-323-1976-896". Am J Phys Anthropol 117 (2): 103-12.</ref>. One version of the this theory maintains homo sapiens evolved from [[Homo ergaster]] or [[Homo erectus|erectus]], and from other earlier primates. Humans' closest living relative is the [[chimpanzee]]. However, despite sharing 98.4% of their DNA sequence and a common ancestor six million years ago, the genetic difference between chimpanzees and humans is 10 times greater than between unrelated humans. <ref> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/238852_chimp01.html</ref>

==The origins of Man according to non-Abrahamic religions==
Myths about the creation of mankind are an important method by which anthropologists may discover more about the societies they are studying, as they show the important facets of human life to that culture. A list of creation myths in various cultures can be found at [http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/creationmyths/index.php]. Some notable myths are presented below.

===Hindu===
According to Hindus, humans were created from a part of the cut up body of Purusha.

===Iroquois===
According to the Iroquois, humans came about fully formed in the Sky World before descending through a hole caused by the uprooting of a tree into a lower world, originally a sea, which the humans manipulated by sending creatures to dive to the sea bottom and bring up mud for the creation of earth on which they could dwell.

===China===
Various creation myths exist in China, the most popular being the story of Nuwa. Nuwa was a lonely goddess, who one day looked in a pool and decided to create figures from mud based on her image in the water; creating many figures of grown ups, children, males and females (where the inspiration for males and children came from is not explained) and blowing on them to give them life (the idea here being that breath is the most important thing to all humans), Nuwa saw that the world became much livelier, and she appreciated it. She decided, too, that creating humans one-by-one was too slow, so she picked up a rope and whipped it into the mud, and many figures tumbled out, which she again blew on to give them life. This kind of creation of humans is common in cultures that have a strong pottery tradition. In the pre-modern Chinese scientific tradition, no creator is ascribed to creation - simply, one became two, two became three, and three generated all things in the universe, and this includes humans.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Anthropology]]
[[Category:Creations of God]]
[[Category:Hominid]]

Homo sapiens

2007-07-01T12:34:00Z

Britinme: /* The Origins of Man according to Evolutionary Biologists and Anthropologists */ Added detail and reference

{{Taxonomy|name=Human|image=Billy_sunday.jpg|kingdom=Animalia|phylum=Chordata|subphylum=Vertebrate|class=Mammalia|order=Primate|family=Hominidae|genus=homo|species=sapiens}}
Humans, or human beings, are classified by biologists as '''''homo sapiens''''', from the [[Latin]] ''homo'' meaning "man", and ''sapiens'' meaning "wise",<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Homo+sapiens&searchmode=term Online Etymology Dictionary]</ref>.

Humans are characterized by a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This mental capability, combined with a body suitable for standing erect such that their upper limbs are free to manipulating objects, allows humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans now inhabit every continent including [[Antarctica]], with a total population of over 6.5 billion as of 2007.

Some researchers claim "modern" humans have possibly been around for approximately 130,000 years<ref>Alemseged Z, Coppens Y, Geraads D (2002). "Hominid cranium from Omo: Description and taxonomy of Omo-323-1976-896". Am J Phys Anthropol 117 (2): 103-12.</ref>.

== Longevity ==
Humans in modern times have been known to live to ages of just over 100 years, although much greater ages have been recorded in the distant past.
According to certain Creationist and Jewish views, God has limited the lifespan of man to 120 years. ({{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=6|verses=3}} and the lifespan of [[Moses]] in {{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=34|verses=7}}), although other creationists believe that the Genesis verse is not referring to an age limit for humans.

== The Origins of Man according to Creationists ==

A large number of [[Christian|Christians]], Jews, Muslims and [[Creationism|Creationists]] have postulated that Homo sapiens were created in [[God|God's]] image on day 6 of [[creation]].[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2313]
:''And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.'' ([[Genesis]] 1:26-27)

:''And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'' (Genesis 2:7)

The first man was [[Adam]].
:''And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.'' (Genesis 2:15)
The first woman, [[Eve]], was made from one of his ribs.
:''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.'' (Genesis 2:22)

Because of the sinful nature of man about 2350 B.C (according to the [[Young Earth Creationist]] view) [[God]] sent a [[Great Flood]] which annihilated all the people on Earth except for the then 600 year old [[Noah]] and his family. All people alive today are descendants of [[Family of Noah|Noah and his family]].

==The Origins of Man according to Evolutionary Biologists and Anthropologists==

In more recent times rationalists, [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and scientists in the fields of biology and more specifically, anthropology, have postulated that humans have been around in anatomically modern form for approximately 130,000 years<ref>Alemseged Z, Coppens Y, Geraads D (2002). "Hominid cranium from Omo: Description and taxonomy of Omo-323-1976-896". Am J Phys Anthropol 117 (2): 103-12.</ref>. One version of the this theory maintains homo sapiens evolved from [[Homo ergaster]] or [[Homo erectus|erectus]], and from other earlier primates. Humans' closest living relative is the [[chimpanzee]]. However, despite sharing 98.4% of their DNA sequence and a common ancestor six million years ago, the genetic difference between chimpanzees and humans is 10 times greater than between unrelated humans. <ref> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/238852_chimp01.html</ref>

==The origins of Man according to non-Abrahamic religions==
Myths about the creation of mankind are an important method by which anthropologists may discover more about the societies they are studying, as they show the important facets of human life to that culture. A list of creation myths in various cultures can be found at [http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/creationmyths/index.php]. Some notable myths are presented below.

===Hindu===
According to Hindus, humans were created from a part of the cut up body of Purusha.

===Iroquois===
According to the Iroquois, humans came about fully formed in the Sky World before descending through a hole caused by the uprooting of a tree into a lower world, originally a sea, which the humans manipulated by sending creatures to dive to the sea bottom and bring up mud for the creation of earth on which they could dwell.

===China===
Various creation myths exist in China, the most popular being the story of Nuwa. Nuwa was a lonely goddess, who one day looked in a pool and decided to create figures from mud based on her image in the water; creating many figures of grown ups, children, males and females (where the inspiration for males and children came from is not explained) and blowing on them to give them life (the idea here being that breath is the most important thing to all humans), Nuwa saw that the world became much livelier, and she appreciated it. She decided, too, that creating humans one-by-one was too slow, so she picked up a rope and whipped it into the mud, and many figures tumbled out, which she again blew on to give them life. This kind of creation of humans is common in cultures that have a strong pottery tradition. In the pre-modern Chinese scientific tradition, no creator is ascribed to creation - simply, one became two, two became three, and three generated all things in the universe, and this includes humans.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Anthropology]]
[[Category:Creations of God]]
[[Category:Hominid]]

Homo sapiens

2007-07-01T12:28:17Z

Britinme: spelling

{{Taxonomy|name=Human|image=Billy_sunday.jpg|kingdom=Animalia|phylum=Chordata|subphylum=Vertebrate|class=Mammalia|order=Primate|family=Hominidae|genus=homo|species=sapiens}}
Humans, or human beings, are classified by biologists as '''''homo sapiens''''', from the [[Latin]] ''homo'' meaning "man", and ''sapiens'' meaning "wise",<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Homo+sapiens&searchmode=term Online Etymology Dictionary]</ref>.

Humans are characterized by a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This mental capability, combined with a body suitable for standing erect such that their upper limbs are free to manipulating objects, allows humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans now inhabit every continent including [[Antarctica]], with a total population of over 6.5 billion as of 2007.

Some researchers claim "modern" humans have possibly been around for approximately 130,000 years<ref>Alemseged Z, Coppens Y, Geraads D (2002). "Hominid cranium from Omo: Description and taxonomy of Omo-323-1976-896". Am J Phys Anthropol 117 (2): 103-12.</ref>.

== Longevity ==
Humans in modern times have been known to live to ages of just over 100 years, although much greater ages have been recorded in the distant past.
According to certain Creationist and Jewish views, God has limited the lifespan of man to 120 years. ({{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=6|verses=3}} and the lifespan of [[Moses]] in {{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=34|verses=7}}), although other creationists believe that the Genesis verse is not referring to an age limit for humans.

== The Origins of Man according to Creationists ==

A large number of [[Christian|Christians]], Jews, Muslims and [[Creationism|Creationists]] have postulated that Homo sapiens were created in [[God|God's]] image on day 6 of [[creation]].[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2313]
:''And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.'' ([[Genesis]] 1:26-27)

:''And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.'' (Genesis 2:7)

The first man was [[Adam]].
:''And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.'' (Genesis 2:15)
The first woman, [[Eve]], was made from one of his ribs.
:''And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.'' (Genesis 2:22)

Because of the sinful nature of man about 2350 B.C (according to the [[Young Earth Creationist]] view) [[God]] sent a [[Great Flood]] which annihilated all the people on Earth except for the then 600 year old [[Noah]] and his family. All people alive today are descendants of [[Family of Noah|Noah and his family]].

==The Origins of Man according to Evolutionary Biologists and Anthropologists==

In more recent times rationalists, [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and scientists in the fields of biology and more specifically, anthropology, have postulated that humans have been around in anatomically modern form for approximately 130,000 years<ref>Alemseged Z, Coppens Y, Geraads D (2002). "Hominid cranium from Omo: Description and taxonomy of Omo-323-1976-896". Am J Phys Anthropol 117 (2): 103-12.</ref>. One version of the this theory maintains homo sapiens evolved from [[Homo ergaster]] or [[Homo erectus|erectus]], and from other earlier primates. Humans' closest living relative is the [[chimpanzee]].

==The origins of Man according to non-Abrahamic religions==
Myths about the creation of mankind are an important method by which anthropologists may discover more about the societies they are studying, as they show the important facets of human life to that culture. A list of creation myths in various cultures can be found at [http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/creationmyths/index.php]. Some notable myths are presented below.

===Hindu===
According to Hindus, humans were created from a part of the cut up body of Purusha.

===Iroquois===
According to the Iroquois, humans came about fully formed in the Sky World before descending through a hole caused by the uprooting of a tree into a lower world, originally a sea, which the humans manipulated by sending creatures to dive to the sea bottom and bring up mud for the creation of earth on which they could dwell.

===China===
Various creation myths exist in China, the most popular being the story of Nuwa. Nuwa was a lonely goddess, who one day looked in a pool and decided to create figures from mud based on her image in the water; creating many figures of grown ups, children, males and females (where the inspiration for males and children came from is not explained) and blowing on them to give them life (the idea here being that breath is the most important thing to all humans), Nuwa saw that the world became much livelier, and she appreciated it. She decided, too, that creating humans one-by-one was too slow, so she picked up a rope and whipped it into the mud, and many figures tumbled out, which she again blew on to give them life. This kind of creation of humans is common in cultures that have a strong pottery tradition. In the pre-modern Chinese scientific tradition, no creator is ascribed to creation - simply, one became two, two became three, and three generated all things in the universe, and this includes humans.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Anthropology]]
[[Category:Creations of God]]
[[Category:Hominid]]

Chimpanzee

2007-07-01T12:24:47Z

Britinme: Added details

Chimpanzee, often shortened to chimp, is the common name for the two extant species in the genus ''Pan''. The better known chimpanzee is ''Pan troglodytes'', the Common Chimpanzee, living primarily in West, and Central Africa. Its cousin, the [[Bonobo]] or "Pygmy Chimpanzee" as it is known archaically, ''Pan paniscus'', is found in the forests of the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]]. The Congo River forms the boundary between the two species.

Most biologists hold the view that chimpanzees and humans share a close common ancestor due to molecular, morphological, physiological, geographical and behavioural similarities. Although in some cases [[convergent evolution]] makes for such similarities in distantly related organisms the similarities between humans and chimps include neutral genetic markers that could not be subject to convergent evolution <ref> A. Hobolth et al. (2007) Genomic relationships and speciation times of human, chimpanzee, and gorilla inferred from a coalescent hidden Markov model. ''PLOS Genetics'' '''23:'''e7</ref>

The name ‘chimpanzee’, adopted by Europeans in 1738, derives from Bantu ''kivili-chimpenze'', ‘mockman’, though 16th century Portugese explorers called them ‘pygmies.’

==Physiology==
A full grown adult male chimpanzee can weigh from 35-70 kilograms (75-155 pounds) and stand 0.9-1.2 meters (3-4 feet) tall, while females usually weigh 26-50 kg (57-110 pounds) and stand 0.66-1 meters (2.0-3.5 feet) tall.

Chimpanzees have both opposable big toes and opposable thumbs. Most primates have nine wrist bones. Humans, chimps and gorillas have eight; two have fused, stabilising the wrist for knuckle-walking.

==Lifespan==
Chimpanzees rarely live past the age of 40 in the wild, but have been known to reach the age of 60 in captivity, and ''Tarzan'' star Cheeta is still alive [[as of 2006]] at the age of 74.

==Social organization==
Chimps travel in small, frequently-changing groups. Larger groups gather around food or an attractive female. Different groups use different tools. Some ‘fish’ for termites with twigs; others crack nuts with rocks or sharpen spears with their teeth to hunt bush-babies. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6387611.stm</ref>

Males co-operate in hunting and share meat afterwards. Although chimps like meat, it forms only 2% of their diet. Bonobos rarely eat it, and both species prefer fruit. Hunts mainly happen during food shortages or for mating displays.

Angry chimps stand upright, swagger, charge, scream and throw things. Grins usually show fear. Social grooming helps maintain calm and friendly relations. Males from neighbouring communities are aggressive with each other.

==Chimpanzee differences==
Anatomical differences between Common and Pygmy Chimpanzees are slight, but in [[sex|sexual]] and social behavior there are marked differences. Common Chimpanzees have an [[omnivore|omnivorous]] [[diet (nutrition)|diet]], a troop [[predation|hunting]] culture based on beta males led by an [[alpha male]], and highly complex social relationships; Bonobos, on the other hand, have a mostly [[herbivorous]] diet and an [[egalitarian]], [[matriarchal]], sexually receptive behavior. The exposed skin of the face, hands and feet varies from pink to very dark in both species, but is generally lighter in younger individuals, darkening as maturity is reached. Bonobos have longer arms and tend to walk upright more often than the Common Chimpanzee.{{fact}}

Among bonobos, females have low-key dominance, priority over eating and solidarity against male aggression. Bonobos use sex in all its permutations to alleviate tension or for appeasement; it’s casual and quick (average 13 seconds) and not necessarily driven by orgasm or reproduction. Anything that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo results in sexual contact. Unlike common chimps, bonobos often have sex face to face. Despite constant sexual activity, reproductive rates are similar to common chimps. Males stay near their mothers all their lives; high-ranking males are usually sons of important females.<ref>http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/chimpanzees/</ref>

==Chimp intelligence==
Chimps can recognise themselves in a mirror, vocalise and show similar nonverbal communication patterns to humans. Young chimps laugh when playful or being tickled. They appear to express emotions. Individuals identify themselves with distinctive sounds. Chimpanzees don’t have the physiology for speech, but can learn some human language – Washoe learned over 800 ASL signs in the 1960s – though without grammar, syntax or words with variable meaning.

Chimp and human brain and CNS anatomy, blood composition and immune response are similar. Many behaviours are similar. However, chimps don’t share history, make long-term plans, or engage in group discussions. The brightest chimp is intellectually duller than a normal human. A form of neuropsin, a protein with a role in learning and memory, originated less than 5 million years ago and is expressed only in humans.

==Chimps and HIV==
HIV may have originated in chimpanzees when they ate monkeys infected with a simian virus, which mutated. This increases the urgency of preserving chimps in their habitat, although commercial logging, bushmeat and the illegal pet trade have put chimps at risk of extinction.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/hiv/dn1991</ref>

==Taxonomic relationships==
The genus ''Pan'' is now considered to be part of the subfamily [[Hominidae]] to which [[human]]s also belong. [[Theory of evolution|Evolutionary]] [[Biology|biologists]] believe that the two species of chimpanzees are the closest living [[evolution|evolutionary]] relatives to [[human]]s. It is thought that humans shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas as recently as [[Pliocene|four]] to [[Miocene|seven million years ago]]. Groundbreaking research by [[Mary-Claire King]] in 1973 found 99% identical [[DNA]] between human beings and chimpanzees,<ref>Mary-Claire King, ''Protein polymorphisms in chimpanzee and human evolution'', Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley (1973).</ref> although research since has modified that finding to about 94%<ref name=ns>{{cite web | url = http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=9D0DAC2B-E7F2-99DF-3AA795436FEF8039 |date = 2006-12-19 | title = Humans and Chimps: Close But Not That Close | publisher = Scientific American | accessdate = 2006-12-20}}</ref> commonality, with at least some of the difference occurring in 'junk' DNA. It has even been proposed that ''troglodytes'' and ''paniscus'' belong with ''sapiens'' in the genus ''[[Homo (genus)|Homo]]'', rather than in ''Pan''. One argument for this is that other species have been reclassified to belong to the same genus on the basis of less genetic similarity than that between humans and chimpanzees. Indeed cladistic taxonomy, based on both genetic difference and date of likely divergence, is very clear in placing both extant species of ''Pan'' in the genus ''Homo'', mainly because the genus ''Homo'' takes precedence on account of being coined first. It is very important, however, to consider where the differences in the genome appear.<ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061219201931.htm</ref>

A study published by Clark and Nielsen of [[Cornell University]] in the December 2003 issue of the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' highlights differences related to one of humankind's defining qualities — the ability to understand [[language]] and to communicate through speech. These macro-phenotypic differences, however, may owe less to physiology than might be assumed given that ''Homo sapiens'' developed modern cultural features long after the modern physiological features were in place and indeed competed averagely against other species of ''Homo'' with regard to tools, etc for many millennia. Differences also exist in the genes for smell, in genes that regulate the metabolism of amino acids and in genes that may affect the ability to digest various proteins.
===Fossils===
Many [[Human evolution|human fossils]] have been found, but chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa do not overlap with the major human fossil sites in East Africa. However, chimpanzee fossils have now been reported from [[Kenya]]. The [[Theory of evolution|evolutionist]] researchers who discovered them asserted: "These fossils, from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya, show that representatives of ''Pan'' were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene, where they were contemporary with an extinct species of ''Homo''."<ref>McBrearty, S. and N. G. Jablonksi (2005), "First fossil chimpanzee," ''Nature'' '''437'''(7055):105-8. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/ Entrez PubMed], search on PMID: 16136135</ref>.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Primates]]
[[Category:Hominid]]

Chimpanzee

2007-07-01T12:10:40Z

Britinme: /* Taxonomic relationships */

Talk:Vole clock

2007-06-17T19:09:33Z

Britinme:

This article, and the article on the [[Vole]] itself, contradict a [[YEC]] viewpoint. Both articles mention the [[Pleistocene]], and this article explains that [[Vole]] teeth can be used to geologically date strata. There's a lot of confusion in CP in this area - one page tells you the Pleistocene existed millions of years ago and vole teeth can help date evolutionary species there, but another page tells the reader we don't believe in geologic time periods. It's very confusing for a student like myself. Can anyone throw some light on what we should do about this? [[User:Carefulnature|Carefulnature]] 14:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't think there's an official 'party line' on this, Carefulnature. Some people, like myself, accept the evidence that appears to show historical periods as described in this article. Others (Philip Rayment and Conservative spring to mind) believe that the Biblical account is a literal, historical one and put forward what they feel to be the evidence for that. Personally, I usually edit what I see as a viewpoint backed by scientific evidence into an article without deleting a YEC viewpoint that's already there, out of courtesy towards another person's sincerely-held viewpoint. I would like to think that those who hold such a viewpoint would extend the same courtesy to me, and allow students such as yourself to make their own minds up about the evidence they read. How much of a student would you be, after all, if you simply learned what you were told without evaluating it?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 15:09, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Britinme

2007-06-17T18:33:36Z

Britinme: /* Checking in.... */

Lobster

2007-06-17T18:32:02Z

Britinme: Undo revision 200063 by Special:Contributions/TK (User talk:TK) The ethical issues around cooking lobsters have aroused much debate - it needs to stay in.

'''Lobsters''', like [[insect]]s, are [[arthropod]]s. Their sub-phylum is called [[Crustacea]], because they have a shell. However, their [[nervous system]] is very like that of insects, and [[Maine]] lobster fishermen call them ‘bugs’. 150 million year-old [[fossil]] lobsters are so similar to today’s lobsters that if one was served for dinner you would not notice the difference. <ref> The Secret Life of Lobsters, by Trevor Corson, pub. Harper Perennial 2005, ISBN 0060555580</ref>

The best-known lobster is ''Homarus americanus'', but there are about fifty species. Some of them have interesting and unusual names, such as the hunchback locust lobster, the velvet fan lobster, the regal slipper lobster, the marbled mitten lobster, the musical furry lobster, the unicorn lobster, the buffalo blunt-horn lobster, the African spear lobster, the Arabian whip lobster and the rough Spanish lobster.

[[American]] lobsters are greenish-brown, and [[European]] lobsters blackish-blue, but whatever their shell color, all lobsters turn red when boiled because protein molecules in the shell bend during cooking into shapes that absorb different wavelengths of light and end up reflecting red. Proteins from the shell of the European ''Homarus gammarus'' can be grown into brilliant blue crystals, and sometimes a [[genetic mutation]] or a lack of [[calcium]] in the diet can make American lobsters grow blue. There are genetic mutations of yellow, white, calico and even red in living lobsters, and (rarely) half and half, with a straight line down the middle of the back dividing the colors.

==Lobsters in history==

The name lobster originated from the Old English ''loppestre'', probably related to ''loppe'', meaning spider. The original derivation probably goes back to the Latin locusta though. [[Pliny the Elder]]’s first century ''Natural History'' described how lobsters, when surprised, seemed to ‘disappear with a single leap or bound as a locust or grasshopper might do’, and so he called them ''locustae'', locusts of the sea.

By the 17th century, the word had become an insult. Calling someone a lobster was like calling him a rogue, and Americans used [[lobsterback]]s as an insult for British soldiers for more reasons than just their red coats.

Two hundred years later, the insult meant somebody was a fool.

Today, lobsters are a luxury item, but early [[New England]] settlers considered them junk food. William Bradford, leader of a group of early settlers, reported shame at having to serve lobster to guests instead of more respectable food. In those days of plenty, storms blew hundreds onto the beach, where farmers used them for animal feed or fertilizer. Fishermen still ate lobster though, because most fish they caught were too valuable to eat but lobster was cheap. <ref> The Secret Life of Lobsters, by Trevor Corson, pub. Harper Perennial 2005, ISBN 0060555580</ref>

==Lobster senses==

[[Image:Lobsterdiagram.gif|right|Anatomy of the lobster.]]

Lobsters’ [[eye]]s can detect motion under low-light conditions but do not discern much detail. However, unlike most eyes, which use lenses to refract light, lobster eyes have no lens. Instead, each eye has a grid of around thirteen thousand square ducts, open at the top, with a crystalline lining that reflects light onto retinal cells. Space scientists are using this as the basis for the design of a new X-ray-vision space telescope called Lobster-ISS because it will be mounted on the [[International Space Station]]. The angles of the mirrors inside lobster eyes are just shallow enough to redirect X-ray signals without absorbing them.

Lobsters have sensitive touch receptors – two long [[antennae]] and thousands of minute hairs that protrude through the shells of their claws and legs, which detect the movement of water currents around them. They use their [[gills]] to draw water from around their body into the gill chambers and then expel it forward either side of the head, up to seven body lengths in front. They can also use their mouthparts to direct water to their own faces. Like houseflies, lobsters also taste with their feet.

A lobster’s most acute sense is its sense of smell. A smaller pair of two-pronged antennae, called [[antennule]]s, contains hundreds of [[chemical receptor]]s that give lobsters most of their hunting and socializing skills. A lobster’s brain consists of several [[nerve ganglion]]s strung together, and nearly half of their volume is dedicated to processing the signals from the antennules. Lobsters use their sense of smell to identify each other as individuals as well as to pick up pheromonal signals and track down food.

American lobsters’ bladders are in their heads, and they urinate directly in front of their faces. This stream of urine mixes with the outflow from the gill chambers and is carried ahead of the lobster. Thus, lobsters literally have urinating competitions. They send messages like ‘Remember me? I beat you up last night,’ or, ‘Want to have sex? I’m about to get undressed,’ by urinating in each other’s faces. The urine of a dominant male lobster exudes a level of confidence that is deeply attractive to female lobsters.<ref> The Secret Life of Lobsters, by Trevor Corson, pub. Harper Perennial 2005, ISBN 0060555580</ref>

==Lobster moulting==

A lobster’s shell is its [[exoskeleton]]. To grow, a lobster must shed its [[shell]], risking predation while a new shell grows. Lobsters do this 25 times in the first five years of life, gaining up to 15% in body length and 50% in volume each time. After this, moulting is usually only twice a year. Adult lobsters moult no more than annually, and less as they grow larger. It is, however, hard to tell the age of a lobster, as they are [[invertebrate]]s and thus have no internal skeleton to keep a record of growth.

The outer layer of the shell is a mixture of [[protein]]s, [[lipid]]s and [[calcium]] salts. Underneath is a mixed layer of protein and chitin, the same [[chitin]] that forms the exoskeletons of insects and some [[arachnid]]s, like [[scorpions]]. The third layer has a stiff calcified outer portion and a softer inner portion. Under this is a [[membrane]], and finally the lobster’s skin.

To prevent a continual cycle of moulting and shell regrowth, glands in lobsters’ eyestalks release a hormone that inhibits moulting. The hormone is controlled by factors such as water temperature and day length. Cutting off a lobster’s eyes causes it to moult almost immediately (as well as bump into things a lot).

Before moulting, the lobster’s skin cells enlarge and secrete the beginning of a new shell under the old one, and calcium accumulates in reservoirs called [[gastrolith]]s on either side of the stomach. During moulting, the lobster pumps sea water into its shell and distributes it around its body so that [[hydrostatic pressure]] forces the old shell away from the new one.

When the lining membrane bursts, the lobster is helpless for twenty minutes, and then must detach itself from its old shell. This is easier said than done. It must lose the mass of muscle in its great claws, or it cannot pull them through the shell around its wrists. Because the teeth inside its stomach that grind its food are part of the exoskeleton, the lobster must pull out the lining of its [[throat]], [[stomach]] and [[anus]] before it can be free of the old shell. Not all lobsters survive moulting.

After this stage, the lobster digests its gastroliths in order to recycle some of the calcium from its old shell into the new one. This calcium goes to harden the tips of the legs and the cutting edges of the mouthparts, without which the lobster cannot feed. It pumps itself full of water again, to expand to a larger size than that contained by the old shell, and then eats its old shell as another source of calcium.

Over the next few days, these [[mineral]]s are secreted into the new shell. When the new shell starts to thicken, the lobster shrinks back to its actual size, to give itself room to grow into the new shell. <ref> The Secret Life of Lobsters, by Trevor Corson, pub. Harper Perennial 2005, ISBN 0060555580</ref>

==Lobster reproductive cycle==

The reproductive cycle begins when the female sheds her old shell. This enables her to mate between moults and carry the eggs until they hatch before she sheds her shell again. She has to do this, because the eggs are attached to the shell and would be lost if shed before hatching.

Most of the time, male and female lobsters are hostile to each other. If they detect each other’s scents in the water with their antennules, they will attack. However, when female lobsters shed their shells they release a sex [[pheromone]] that male lobsters find strangely arousing. In fact, as smell and taste underwater are both ways of detecting chemical molecules, the male lobster could be said to taste the female as much as smell her during this time.

==Lobster egg hatching==

As females age, they become more adept at mating and at making eggs. Unlike human females. older and larger female lobsters produce more eggs than younger – around fifty thousand at a time. It used to be thought that because mating occurs during moulting and large females moult less often than small females, the less frequent spawning cancelled out the advantage of the extra eggs. However, later research showed that older females have larger seminal receptacles that effectively function as a sperm bank, so that from one mating an older female can produce and fertilize two batches of eggs without moulting or mating again, so they only need a mate once every four or five years in order to outbreed their younger rivals.

Lobster eggs develop for nine or ten months inside the female’s [[ovaries]]. Then she finds a secluded spot, lies on her back, folds her tail to create a pouch, and squirts the eggs out through a pair of ducts. At the same time, she opens her seminal receptacle, and fertilizes the eggs she has stored since mating. She attaches the eggs to the underside of her tail with adhesive from glands on her swimmerets, and carries them around for another ten months’ development before they hatch, when she releases them.<ref> The Secret Life of Lobsters, by Trevor Corson, pub. Harper Perennial 2005, ISBN 0060555580</ref>

==Lobster claws==

Lobsters are ambidextrous as hatchlings, and their two claws are identical. During their first couple of years of life, they start to favour one or the other for crushing and the other for grasping and cutting. They develop two types of muscle fibres – fast fibres that contract rapidly but tire quickly, and slow fibres that contract more slowly but more strongly and for longer. As handedness develops, the seizing claw fills with fast muscle and the crushing claw with slow, and so it becomes bulkier.<ref> The Secret Life of Lobsters, by Trevor Corson, pub. Harper Perennial 2005, ISBN 0060555580</ref>

==Lobster fighting==

When lobsters fight, they first shove each other with their claws and then grasp each other’s crushing claws and squeeze. After fifteen or twenty seconds, the weaker lobster will usually try and retreat, and the winner releases it. A losing lobster may be spared if it is sufficiently submissive, but might still be hacked to death.

If squeezing isn’t enough to settle the matter, the claws are used to attack the other’s antennae, legs, claws or eyes. A lobster gripped by another lobster can jettison its own limb by using a special muscle at its base. This is a protective mechanism, because lobsters’ blood flows through their body cavities rather than through veins, so a leak in their shells can cause it to bleed to death unless it is sealed off. Also, although lobsters are not usually cannibals, the scent of an injured lobster’s blood can drive other lobsters to kill and eat it. Fortunately, lobsters can regenerate legs, antennae and claws, though not eyes – although sometimes other appendages can appear in the eye’s place.<ref> The Secret Life of Lobsters, by Trevor Corson, pub. Harper Perennial 2005, ISBN 0060555580</ref>

==Lobster choice of environment==

Lobsters prefer to be sheltered and somewhat dark, and they choose homes the way people choose jeans, but there are often dominance struggles in which one lobster will oust another from a particular holes. Young lobsters tend to choose tighter-fitting holes, and older lobsters choose a more relaxed fit, and will leave the younger lobsters alone unless they feel the neighbourhood is getting crowded, in which case they will unceremoniously turf the youngsters out. However, if a neighbourhood gets really crowded, the older lobsters will leave to seek out a less populated area and leave the young lobsters to fight over the small, crowded homes.<ref> The Secret Life of Lobsters, by Trevor Corson, pub. Harper Perennial 2005, ISBN 0060555580</ref>

==Lobster fishing==

Lobster fishing has thrived in the Gulf of Maine in the last century or so, largely because of the over-fishing of cod, the main predator of young lobsters in the past. Many laws govern lobstering in the State of Maine, home of the world’s largest lobster fishing industry. Fishermen and scientists have co-operated to preserve the stocks in recent years, by mandating minimum and maximum sizes of catch, and the preservation of egg-laying females. Lobsters take seven years to reach sexual maturity, so the size regulations preserve immature lobsters and protect the breeding stock. Breeding females have a notch cut out of their tail flippers, which makes them illegal to sell even if they are not carrying eggs when caught.<ref> The Secret Life of Lobsters, by Trevor Corson, pub. Harper Perennial 2005, ISBN 0060555580</ref>

==Lobsters avoid their sick neighbors==

Scientists have discovered that Caribbean spiny lobsters try to stay away from others that are sick. Healthy lobsters given a choice between an empty den and one with a sick lobster choose the empty den. They avoid sick lobsters weeks before there are visible symptoms and before the sick lobsters become infectious, probably by detecting chemical cues.
<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7092/abs/441421a.html</ref>

==Ethical issues over cooking lobsters==

Lobster meat is a healthy food, if it is served without melted butter. It is nearly fat free, and has fewer calories and less cholesterol than animal or poultry meat. It contains vitamins A, B12, and E, calcium, zinc and phosphorous, and is high in desirable omega-3 fatty acids, although it is relatively high in sodium. The lobster’s combined liver and pancreas, called the tomalley and easily recognized from its greenish color, is not usually eaten, because it filters toxins so that lobster meat is not affected by other kind of shellfish blight and does not transmit diseases.

Dead lobster meat generates toxins quickly, and it is not safe to eat, but Animal welfare groups have long campaigned against the boiling of live lobsters. Although lobster nervous systems have been well studied, there is no clear answer to the question of whether lobsters feel pain. Lobsters have stress receptors but no identifiable pain receptors. They do not act pained at the loss of a limb or when wounds are inflicted. When a lobster is dropped into a steaming pot, its movements are no different to escape responses in any threatening situation. The nervous system does not seem to be more sophisticated than that of an insect.

When various methods of boiling lobster were tested, putting it straight into boiling water resulted in the shortest time of killing it. Chilling the lobster in the freezer first reduced the time of activity to no more than twenty seconds. For non-vegetarians, this is humane compared to the deaths of many other animals.<ref> The Secret Life of Lobsters, by Trevor Corson, pub. Harper Perennial 2005, ISBN 0060555580</ref>

==Lobsters in the Surrealist movement==

Following the example of the French poet Gérard de Nerval, who owned a pet lobster which he took for walks through Paris, and described them as "peaceful, serious creatures, who know the secrets of the sea, and don't bark", lobsters became popular in the [[Surrealism|Surrealist]] movement of the early 20th century – apparently more for the inherent absurdity of their shape than any other reason. The [[Dadaism|Dadaist]] poet Hugo Ball read his poem Karawane in 1916 on stage at the Cabaret Voltaire, wrapped in brightly colored cardboard, wearing a tall, striped wizard's hat and cardboard lobster claws on his hands. The wealthy and eccentric English poet and art collector Edward James commissioned [[Salvador Dali]]’s four 1936 Lobster Telephones. However, although Dali thought of surrealist objects as “absolutely useless from the practical and rational point of view”, they functioned perfectly as telephones. <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070329055918.joodx8y0&show_article=1&cat=0</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Crustaceans]]
[[Category:Seafood]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-23T02:02:25Z

Britinme: /* AEI and Exxon-Mobil */

{{Protected|TK}}

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Biased Line ==

"Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him"

Whoever said this you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. source that please!

Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(that he has problems trying to give away)

See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I edited in a section called 'Evidence' that was solidly backed up with references to reputable scientific sites. I see they've been reverted for 'Liberal bias'. What's 'Liberal bias' about facts about glacier recession and sea level rise? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:10, 23 March 2007

The article currently says "The theory enjoys wide political support, but many climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." This makes it sound as if there is an even balance between the number of climatologists and meteorologists who agree and disagree with the theory. This is inaccurate. The sentence should read "a minority of climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." I thought we were all about accuracy? The following sentence about 'consensus' is negated by the references to two out of that small minority of climatologists and meteorologists who disagree. By all means their names and views should be left in, to represent their disagreement, but their weight in the scale of scientific opinion should not be over-represented, and it should be balanced by reference to the names of proponents of the theory. I would be happy to make these changes, but the page is locked. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

=== Point 1 ===
"Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical." -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! "Very widely accepted"?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first link says "Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.". It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and "ex-liberal" discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the "ex-liberal" says: "MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well" (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning "overwhelming scientific evidence" but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is "very widely accepted" by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Point 4 ===
I think this is wrong. "Measures to combat global warming/climate change" are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a "fix it yourself" policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==
The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]
: Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Profit Motive ==
While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the citations needed in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Source #16 ==
How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== The whole article ==

The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?
: Global warming has become a new religion with Al Gore as the Pope of global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming "religion" similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled "religions" or "agendas," etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.

==Did you know...==
Does anyone here know that the polar ice caps have been shrinking considerably during the past three years? Now what on Mars could be doing that?

Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: Either it is a natural cycle on Mars, or solar activity increased and is generating more heat. If the later, it disproves pro-global warming scientists. Unless pro-global warming scientists want to claim that Martians are polluting CO2 on Mars to cause global warming, in which there is no evidence of Martians. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It doesn't 'disprove' pro-global warming scientists. It just factors in increased solar activity as another aspect of global warming and says nothing about anthropogenic aspects. Scientists generally believe that solar forcing, as it's called, is in the neighbourhood of one tenth of the total contribution to the heating of the atmosphere. Even this skeptic is citing solar forcing as no more than one third to two thirds contribution, and feels that anthropogenic contributions will be more important over the next century. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar . What are your figures for the extent of polar ice cap recession on Mars compared to the extent of polar ice cap recession on Earth? Take into account too the very different atmospheric conditions prevailing on Mars. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]]1:15, 24 March 2007

== Al Gore is no expert and no saint ==
These lines were removed, but they paint a picture of Al Gore:
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm
Al Gore is no scientist, and he didn't do anything to halt global warming while in office. I think he does a lot of credibility damage to global warming because of these things. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==
Dang, this article is really biased. People need to realise that Earth is changing, and it is being caused by humans. It is sad to see how people are so disrespectful to the work of God. I think that destroying everything great that the Lord has made is a terrible sin and this website should recognise the harm that they are doing to this great gift that God has given us.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 19:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*I believe there is plenty of evidence, and scientists, who do not adopt the panic-mode of Gore and others. Many believe it is a natural occurrence, perhaps hastened by fossil fuel consumption, but nevertheless something that has occurred hundreds of times, in the life of the planet. It is your job, everyone, as contributors and posters here, to edit the page to strike some balance, rather than dismiss opposing thought as morons, and ignore what others say. ''If this cannot be done, I will lock the page''. I hate to do that, because supposedly adults, thinking people, should be able to arrive at a meaningful compromise. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Lots of things are "perfectly natural".... like dying of [[cholera]] at age 28. We do our best to stop that from happening, too. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The way we stopped cholera is by avoiding wishful thinking and carrying out careful experiments. There's a fascinating detective story about how the first researcher proved that it was contaminated water (from a single pump?) that was causing a cholera epidemic in London. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::On the other hand, if we render the planet TOTALLY unlivable, Jesus will HAVE to return and save us all!

::No need to lock the page. I know a lot about what both sides are saying and can perhaps help to craft a balanced article. (I am the original author of [[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks Ed!! Thats the spirit! I posted some links below, so some can take a look, possibly add their own, of actual scientists who just hate all the alarmism. Feel free to IM me anytime. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:*'''Sorry, some felt the need for a fight tonight, I guess, and kept reverting. Just let me know, I will unlock it once the children have stopped their tantrums.''' --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Facts & Links To Check Out... ==

Whose Ox Is Gored? The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804]

The Tempest
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html]

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html]

An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away: [http://newsbusters.org/node/9262]

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

<blockquote>
"...But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

'''Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.'''

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

'''While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”'''

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

'''It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.'''

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

'''“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”'''

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

'''“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”''' </blockquote>
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

== Al Gore Header ==

*Is it really necessary? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

There are hundreds of people, some with star power and knowledge exceeding Al Gore, on both sides of this issue. Why is Al Gore given somemuch time and space in this catagory?

"So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming""

quoted from above. By whose notion is he the leading expert on Global Warming? Where is reference to Hansen, Broecker, Schmidt,Thompson et al, you know people who actually study this stuff for a living? Why focus on Gore? ''---The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Third Day''

:The Democratic Party is largely Liberal, and global warming is a big issue for liberals. Al Gore is one of the most popular Democrats, and he has a book out called "Earth in the Balance". Who else *but* Gore? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
*Were you speaking to me? If so, I am wondering why the info under the Gore heading couldn't be better placed in the body of the article rather than his own heading..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

::Conservatives have [[Richard Lindzen]], who is an actual scientist who makes sense and doesn't fudge the numbers. Liberals only have <s>[[Jim Hansen]],</s> who will never live down his "scary scenarios" remark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::*Oops, I meant [[Stephen Schneider]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I just added a line to the Gore header, to balance it some. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "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." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

:Then go in the history and find the source, and put it back in. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
*Exactly! And be sure to let either Hoji or me know if another revert war starts. ;-) ---~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocking ==

This article is far from complete. When will it be unlocked so we can add information about scientific data showing natural causes for warming, explanation of the solar flux theory, carbon dioxide tracking temps, cosmoclimatology, paleoclimatology, etc. As it stands it makes it look like all we care about is the political side of things. This can't be true, can it? This unsigned comment was made by [[User:Third Day]]

*You are right. I suppose for now, if you would like to post the additions here, they can be pasted over. Or you can contact me, and I could open it up for you to edit. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously nothing was important enough to contact me about, or post here about. Makes me wonder why, upon locking a page, people want it open, for what? If they don't come back with a suggestion or contribution, what is the point? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I've been on the road, hence I did not respond. Some of us have lives outside of this site. I will put together a summary of additions I feel worthy and post here in the talk section. I do wonder if the whole Wiki concept is undermined if the additions need to be vetted by a select few. It may take years for the articles to settle into a reflection of community knowledge, but thats the point, right? Nobody goes to a wiki, any kind of wiki, for the absolute truth on anything. No wiki is a valid source in a peer reviewed paper or even a college paper. It is a way to get a sense of the state of knowledge in a community of users. Wikipedia suffers from the fact that the community of users is so broad as to produce everchanging articles. There are Wikis that restrict the user base to members of certain communities - like a company or agency or users of a particular software. But if Conservapedia wants to surviv and not be mocked it needs to open itself up to slings and arrows. If indeed, we conservatives really believe that our point of view will dominate, then we need not be afraid to open up to liberal edits - cause enough of us will respond in force, and in time will overwhelm. If we just lock down the articles will never evolve (pardon the word) into a compleat, trustworthy wikipedia. OK, I'm done ranting. Off my soap box now :). - Third Day

==Are there any Wikipedia editors here?==
An article on Scientific data withholding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_withholding] has been nominated for deletion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_data_withholding#.5B.5BScientific_data_withholding.5D.5D] If you are a Wikipedia editor, please read the article and vote. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 00:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong question to ask here. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to canvas for votes. You're doing the right thing in the wrong way. Next step is RFC and/or an email to Jimbo. You don't win this kind of battle by stooping to their level. Stay here and work on the climate articles, instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I just learned about "canvassing." I know Connelly is doing it because people are showing up to vote who have not read the article or the Talk page. Teach me the right way to handle this, Ed. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is off-topic, but since I brought it up I better finish it.

:This is the type of battle that it's okay to lose. When people see that the process was followed on one side, but ignored or misused on the other side, then sympathy is genereated for the correct side. Think Rosa Parks. Think [[sit-ins at lunch counters]]. And also think about contributing more here. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Using "Global Climate Change" is not kosher ===

This is a way for carbon alarmists to hedge their bets, and answer critics if there's a series of cold winters. In the 1970s they were ringing the Ice Age bell, now they've settled on warming so they can dial back the economies of the West (while ignoring China). [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The [[global warming controversy]] has replaced the [[Vietnam War]] and [[nuclear power]] as the big-ticket leftist issue. And now that Communism has faded from Europe and is morphing in [[China]], what are all the socialists going to get into but the [[Environment]]? It's the perfect materialistic cause, and there's plenty of money to go around. The US government alone spends over a billion dollars a year on "research" and the United Nations issues assessments every few years (see [[IPCC]]). We all know how objective and fair minded the UN [[General Assembly]] has been on non-environmental issues such as [[human rights]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::note that nuclear power is actully the best canidate for clean, alternative energy; yet, most enviornmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace are vehemently opposed to it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This article is a completely unsourced diatribe. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== pictures ==
We need some pictures--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Admin: Can we use wikipedia.org pictures? --[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:yes if it's public domain.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 04:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

I don't think I would be too wrong in saying that conservative young-earth creationism and skepticism over human-induced climate change usually go together, not all the time of course, but on this site they seem to. Whats strange however, is that geological evidence is cited uncritically in this article in order to discredit human-induced climate change:

:"Global warming is a natural periodic increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and it has always been followed by period of global cooling ... According to geologists, the Earth has experience numerous ice ages."

Even though this is incompatible with young earth creationism. To quote from Conservapedia's own [[Ice Age]] entry:
:"Mainstream geologists and Young Earth creationists are at odds over whether any ice ages have actually occurred."

A clear demonstration, in my opinion, of the type of muddled thinking that conservative fundamentalist ideology generates. (These inconsistent portions of the articles were even added by the same author: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=124708 Global warming edit history] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ice_Age&diff=prev&oldid=113042 Ice Age edit history].)
[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's more a typical demonstration of jumping to conclunions on the part of liberals. I'm the author of the current [[global warming]] article, and I'm not a YEC. :P --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I would also point out that I am the main author of the [[Theory of evolution]] article which is definitely critical the macroevolutionary position, and I am undecided regarding the global warming issue in regards to its possible causes and its possible effects. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::You still add criticism of mainstream geology when it suits you, and uncritically marshal it in your support when it doesn't. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 16:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Orgone has a very good point. A YEC should have no issue with global warming since the earth has not been around long enough to go through these climate changes that geologists say we have gone through.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

'''See also:''' [[Nineteen_Eighty-Four | Doublethink]]

==Liberal bias==

I would like to ask anyone who disagrees with top U.S. climate experts - Harvard and MIT scientists and U.S. state climatologists - to go slowly and carefully when editing this article.

My dad majored in physics, and I got top grades in math and physics. There is a lot of liberal misinformation about [[Anthropogenic global warming]] tied to the UN-promoted [[Kyoto Protocol]], the global warming treaty which seeks a "[[carbon tax]]" and other forms of [[emissions trading]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well ''my'' dad is bigger than ''your'' dad so ''there''! (Childish of me i know, but i couldn't resist it!) :-p [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Java, I agree with some of your edits, but I think that the first paragraph should stick to undisputed facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:I aded references. [[User:Java|Java]] 17:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all references tell the truth. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Is this a joke? I referenced from Nature, PNAS, Science and GISS. Why should the current references tell the truth? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::::for 1 thing anything talking about "the last 420,000 years" is wrong. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am a little vexed. Do you want to put me on? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

*Java, YEC's, since they don't believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years or so, won't accept those figures. RSchlafly, I have once again protected this article, so stop this kind of constant arguing. Please keep an eye peeled for our more Liberal Sysop's opening it up. Thanks! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::As I pointed out above in '''Ideological Inconsistencies''', if this site is to view everything through the distorting mirror that is YEC, why do the references to [[Ice Age]]s stay in the introductory section? [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Um, please freeze on a version with facts ==

Not to rock the boat or anything, but the current un-editable version of the Global Warming page has essentially no scientific merit. Could someone please revert to a version with some actual discussion of global warming. I'm happy to write it. It involves sunshine, blackbody radiation, the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide, and an explanation of climate feedbacks. -Ifixthings

: I agree. Describe global warming accurately first. Get into the politics later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*Cool, Roger. Open it, edit it, do whatever. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, I unlocked it. Please keep science and politics separate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I love the nice accurate new version. I give it five minutes before it's reverted.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
**Yeah, it didn't last long, which is stupid because it was much more correct.[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 17:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh Ed Poor... You make me an sad panda, those corrections you made are quite horrible. The version by Ifixthings was a good one, and the missing citations could be corrected quite fast, already found several good and reliable sources. Wikintrepeter at least fixed the most outrageous claims. But still some are left like: "However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject" Still at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries support the claim and only one to my knowledge opposes it, that being American Association of Petroleum Geologists. And to be honest, them opposing it isn't really surprising. Im seriously baffled how one can deny the scientific consensus here, and seeing what i claim to be intellectual dishonesty makes me really sad, as this is something which will directly affect our lives and if not ours then at least our children's. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Both of the APA's voted that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Does that make it true? Are you quite sure their votes were not politically motivated?

:It doesn't matter how many '''groups''' take a stand on a matter of science. It only matters what the science actually is. But if you care about polls, what percent of climate scientists support or oppose the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] theory? If you know, do speak up. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, at minimum it matters what groups take a position since you claimed that "the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject". Even if that weren't the issue at hand, the number of people who are experts on an issue and have come to a conclusion a certain way about the issue does matter. While it doesn't alter who is correct in an absolute sense it does alter the estimated probability of an opinion being correct for someone who is trying to get some idea what to do and who does not have the time or resources to go through all the data that the experts do. That logic applies to any application of a scientific endeavor. For example there are still some geocentrists, the government when formulating policy does not need to worry about them. This is true for a politician whether or not that politician has bothered to understand what is wrong with geocentrism. Note that I'm not saying that global warming is equivalent to geocentrism but making the point that when evaluating claims on limited data or resources, the opinion of the vast majority matters. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::JoshuaZ allready gave so good answer that i have little to add to it. Im not sure if there has been done any exact polls on how many percentage of the experts on this area support or opposes anthropogenic global warming, but ill try to find one. Alltho i think that allready the number of supporting scientific societies and academies of science and the lack of opposing ones gives an quite good picture of the situation. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A trustworthy article should give scientific facts, don't you agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I really dont see where you are aiming at with this, as the link i just gave on the conversation bit below, shows that allready at year 2000 there where no studyes to be found that opposed the concencus, but offcourse there will allways be some "scientists" who disagree. if you are aiming for universal acceptance of an theory before it can be called an scientific fact, i must say we really dont have any. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

''The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years,'' YECs why don`t you delete this phrase and block the article? --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Joshua, the top experts say it's natural, and surveys of climatologists agree. What exactly is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: That's simply false. The UN report which you dislike was written by the top experts, who signed off on it. Again, the vast majority of the relevant scientific organizations have agreed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I've asked you twice for proof of this. I ask you here one last time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Sigh. Did you read what I wrote on your talk page or not? Almost every single author of the reports(and I listed a few as examples) is a respected scientist and there are about 40 authors to each report. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Found atleast [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 this] as an partial answer to the question here and above, alltho the report is already quite old and rapid progress has been made during few years, even at year 2000 this study didn't found '''any''' studies that disagreed with the consensus. That should already tell something. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: Hmm, interesting quote from that "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

A literature search by a [[Kyoto Protocol]] supporter is not the same as a study or a survey. It means nothing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Celsius ==

How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the [[Little Ice Age]] in 1850. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would prefer Kelvin. --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). [[User:Human|Human]] 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary "looks like". I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Political bias==

The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And ''Science'' might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's "not of interest to their readers". I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Um, what? Science isn't a "popular journal" but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No? ''This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.'' --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says "I agree with the IPCC about (anything)." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.
:And a recent examples:
Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 [[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666

== Independent scientists such as ... [[Fred Singer]] ==

Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, well by "independent" I just meant "speaking for himself", "not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line". Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Like [[James Hansen]] - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/][http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183]
:::Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::False citation: #11 doesn't say he was told not to talk about global warming, it just says that official press releases would be scrutinized. #12 doesn't mention his ability to talk at all; in it Hansen accuses Bush of stifling evidence (but without giving any examples of this supposed stifling). #13 says "Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing" but doesn't give the wording of this supposed "threat" or even a summary of it.

:::This is typical of liberals: they make claims which have no evidence. The entire case on global warming consists of claims that "the world's top scientists agree" but they give no polls to support this "consensus" claim. They say that "models predict" but when the models are contradicted by observations they say that "models aren't predictions". They say it's carbon dioxide, but CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when there was cooling, and anyway the climate record of the last 400 million years show an 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change - CO2 '''follows''' temperature, rather than driving it.

:::They are politicizing science while running a well orchestrated PR campaign of calling the kettle black. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so...... ==

Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/what_happened_predictions.html][http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/failpred.html] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc).

Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.asp?pr=2178] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.

Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.
:*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
:Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation? ==

I removed this uncited statement:

"However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position."

Can anyone give a citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the "no proof" claim should be taken out.

:But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

One of the citations: [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This "study" has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/FORUM.pdf] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

:Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

This paragraph does not distinguish between "global warming", i.e., a rise in temperature and "the Global Warming theory", i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.

Also undefined is "the effects of Global Warming". What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism Edit==
I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's ok, no problem. I was just surprised when I looked and right after my edit it said 'removed vandalism'. ;-) I didn't catch it myself until I saw your change. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

"The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years" - not according to this wiki's article on [[Ice Age]]. You can't have it both ways, did they occur, and is the earth at least 2,000,000 years old, or did they not and is it not? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

........--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationary scientists]] believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf ''What about the Ice Age?''], ''The Creation Answers Book'', Chapter 16). I guess I was hoping for a clearer answer than "........", which I don't understand. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cite Leading Group of Climate Change Skeptics? ==

As the IPCC is included in the introduction to this entry, it's appropriate that the leading group of climate change skeptics be cited, instead of individual scientists. Does anybody know what the appropriate body to cite is? I'm aware of "The Friends of Science", but I believe they're exclusively Canadian. [[User:Dbarefoot|Dbarefoot]] 08:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

I posit that if we're going to lay out the groups on both side of the global warming debate, they ought to be qualified equally, or not at all. I don't think these qualifiers are appropriate in introductions--they belong in the particular entries about the individuals or groups.

As I've queried above, I think it makes sense to describe the leading group of climate change skeptics or doubters, as they seem a natural counterpoint to the IPCC. Citing individual scientists seems too anecdotal for an encyclopedia, which ought to seek to be conclusive.

== " removing liberalness" ==

Is now given as a reason to alter an article? Ironically, the rather few "non-liberal" qualifiers I have ever typed were all reverted. Maybe because a liberal is not allowed to say these things? Or perhaps, just because since I can't understand them, I can't push the POV appropriately? [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Look at the statement i removed. i removed it because it was unsourced. perhaps i should have said "removing unsourced statement"[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Remember, liberal sources don't count! --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== How about these changes? ==

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.[Citation Needed]

I was going to use -> http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806 <- this as a citation before the page got locked :)

....and also I must take issue with this statement. "The scenario most postulated is dust storms.[4]"

Dust storms are not the "most" postulated -- The sun's solar cycles are just as much of a plausable theory....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

:I have no problem with that change, and I'm the one who entered the original information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neptune ==

I just read today that global warming has been found to be occurring on Neptune. It matches the same pattern for the time period found upon Mars and earth. It may be safe to assume that is not due to human intervention. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Where did you see this? I'd be very interested in reading about this in more detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950. I hope this is enough information to 'dig' it up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Found it. The paper is interesting. The correlation found was positive but not statistically significant between the brightness of Neptune and the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, from my reading it looks like one might expect a significant correlation even if most of the recent warming on earth is anthropogenic (note that this isn't my area of expertise so that could be painfully wrong). It should be interesting to see where this goes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I take no personal position on the issue, but I do believe any information that could be meaningful to form a complete picture should be included. That Mars and Neptune are both heating up over the same time period as the earth, and in the case of Mars even the temperature amount is similar, is certainly notable. It seems to me there is too much of an effort to dismiss information that would appear to be at odds with the concept that global warming is caused by humans, and that is unfortunate. (Note: I don't count global warming on Pluto due to Pluto's strange orbit. It has too many oddities, from my point of view, to be put in the same category.) Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the header title before posting here, I hope I didn't step on any toes. The Header ''was'' '''Global Warming on other Planets''' Which I changed to '''Warming ''of'' other Planets'''. I did this to prevent confusion, though indeed the other planets are ''also'' globes but usually, (in my experience) "global" means the sum and totality of Earth. Feel free to change it back if'n you want. - [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the talk message, and no offense taken. I've found that articles that discuss other planets usually still use the term global warming. For instance it has been popular to talk about global warming on Venus over the last decade or so, and the term global warming is used. The source about global warming on Mars also used the words global warming and Mars in the title. For these reasons I felt it was appropriate to keep the header title with global warming. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have [[experiment]]al evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is it an error? No. It is correct as it is. "Belief" means to give assent to an idea. It does not mean, despite the way some atheistic types think of it, as accepting an idea without evidence or good reason.
:Is it the best way to word it? Maybe not, but I'm not happy with your suggestion either. If I remember, I'll have more of a think about it.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::How about "Secular scientists think"? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::To my mind, "believe" is the better word. "Think" to me indicates some doubt, whereas "believe" can be a very strong conviction. But not everybody sees it that way, so I'll agree to changing it to "think", and in fact I've just done that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*This article has taken on drastic changes, it is a diluted, semi-neutral piece. It needs to be overhauled without the Liberal bias, and the removed material from warming skeptics added back. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
What is wrong with semi-neutral??? Is it only good if it carries a right wing arch-conservative bent?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Britnme, it is not true that getting peer-reviewed work published is a guarantee that it is based on experimental evidence. It only means that no obvious errors were found, and that the editor thinks it will interest his readers.

:Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==AGW==

Cut from article:

:... contrasts with the effects predicted for [[anthropogenic global warming]].

What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

Hi Dan, I'd like to point out that it is possible for Creation Scientists to believe in global warming as well, but they would not attach a 2 million year period of ice ages. ICR, for instance, takes a neutral view on global warming believing so far that the case has not been made satisfactorily, but they are open to ongoing evidence that may steer their opinion one way or the other if more concrete information is found. But even if they did feel global warming has been shown to be caused by humans, they still would not believe the earth is 2 million years old. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, the age issue would apply only to Young Earth Creationists. I will freely admit that more creation scientists are global warming skeptics than other scientists, but I don't think we need to make the distinction here, especially because, as you said, groups like ICR take a neutral stance on it, so it's a separate issue. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::The edit was to a paragraph about ice ages, not about global warming itself. That's why it is appropriate to qualify it somehow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Falsehood==

The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term "liberal falsehood" to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hockey Stick ==

This seems like an inappropriate graph to me. The gray are the real values, but they've been averaged to get a blue line to smooth out large fluctuations. Highlighting the ups and downs of the gray would give a very different picture. Also, it only deals with the northern hemisphere, which makes the overall numbers incomplete for the 'global' part of global warming. (I realize the ice samples were only taken from the north pole, but we've got another pole that needs to be checked for balance if those figures are to be as meaningful as they are made to appear.) Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

The linked citation reads: ''AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. ExxonMobil gave AEI approximately $925,000 between 1998 and 2003.''

Jacques, why do you keep cutting out the part about the AEI trying to buy scientists? It's got a citation. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Clay mathematics institute also offer money rewards, do you think it's trying to buy scientists?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I won't have any idea until you put a link in there for a cite, so I can read it for myself. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::The Nobel Prize committee make their award on the basis of what someone has done (i.e. a reward) not on the basis of getting someone to prove or do something (i.e. a bribe). [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Let me guess--you own stock in Exxon? Such defensiveness ill-becomes someone with no money in this fight. --23:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And you own stock in solar power companies.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have a cite with a very long list of opponents to the global warming theory who have been sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. This is relevant to support the statement that such large oil industry companies are leading opponents of the theory. The line about offering $10,000 can be omitted if it's felt to be irrelevant.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Please do--then at least I won't get banned for an 'edit war'. And Jacques, PLEASE post a list of scientists being bankrolled by the massive Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, once you get it together. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::well, your thinking seems to be: tax money = good, donation = evil. Private donation automatically corrupt people and tax money does not, and any scientist who accept private donation is an Evil Communist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::man what
::::::oooookay. Let me make sure I understand your 'logic' here. Basically, you're saying that all these scientists, both the goverment-funded and the Exxon-funded, are equally corrupt, and should be treated with exactly the same amount of credibility, the same way that 'researchers' for the [[Tobacco institute]] were treated when they were the only doctors on Earth who failed to find a connection between smoking and lung diseases. Am I understanding your 'reasoning' here, so far? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::::So you are saying that you would have believed it when Soviet Union government funded Scientists claimed they have 'disproved' Darwinian evolution?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Considering how many Darwinists they had to ship off to Siberia to do it? Maybe not. Anyway, working off of your apparent belief that the Government is funding Global Warming research for its own insidious ends, what's the Bush-controlled US government's incentive to _support_ the Global Warming Theory? (Especially seeing how George is an oilman himself.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::Of course, Soviet government would never tell you that they ship dissenters overseas now would they. And despite what you may think, George Bush does not control the distribution of science funding.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::::You don't know where [[Siberia]] is, do you. And what's the rest of the [[Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy]]'s reason for their immense hoax? --00:34, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::"equally corrupt", or "equally likely to be corrupt"? Surely nobody here is claiming that either side is corrupt, merely suggesting that they might be account where the money is coming from. From that point of view, I would say yes, each side is ''equally likely'' to be corrupt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I am quite happy with the current version, which is a simple statement of fact - thank you for the edit, Jaques, which I think improves it. Regarding tobacco/lung diseases mentioned, I wonder if on the article about [[Richard Lindzen]] it should be mentioned how much money he received from the tobacco industry to dispute the connection between tobacco and lung diseases. Not that I would suggest for one moment that the gentleman does not believe what he advocates. I'm sure he is quite sincere--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'll bet he's sincere. Nothing produces true sincerity like a regular paycheck. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18121730/site/newsweek/ Richard Lindzen has already responded to this sort of smearing tactics by enviornmentalists.] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:07, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::"If a man's paycheck depends on him not understanding something, you can pretty well depend on him not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair's Law.

:::::::The wording that Jaques keeps deleting was previously approved by sysop Phillip J Rayment. These deletions smack of vandalism are against the CP commandments. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Standard Wikipedia tactic. Come into channel, blame someone for rules violations, get him booted, take over, right? It worked for SlimVirgin over there. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*I will be the decider of that sock, not you. I suggest you keep to productive edits, and off the talk pages. Unfortunately, Arjen was a sock of BrianCo, and actually even posted on the user page. Both gone now. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I am still not getting what's wrong with an oil company funding global warming research. Or what is significant about some of that research being different from the consensus. What do the critics think -- that ExxonMobil should ignore the issue? That all research should just endorse what has already been published? I made a change to drop some of the goofy conspiratorial innuendo. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::There's no innuendo about a statement of fact - this company gave this much money to these organizations over this period of time, and the organizations all had one thing in common. It's not a conspiracy - it's a perfectly straightforward transaction as far as I can see. There's no secret about it and the figures are public. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: The innuendo is that that oil companies only gave money to skeptics, that they funded bad science, and that there is something improper about them funding research. Your sources don't prove any of those things, and are just goofy left-wing conspiracy rants. Can you please explain the point of the statement on the Talk page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::There is nothing improper at all about a company only funding researchers whose views are in their commercial interests and I don't think the statement says it's improper - it says E-M is opposed to this view and they fund people whose views agree with theirs but run counter to the mainstream. As I said, there's no conspiracy about it - conspiracy implies secrecy and this is no secret. Moreover, it could be argued that it's entirely proper for a company to defend its own commercial interests and that of its shareholders. I can't understand why there should be a problem about making their stance clear, as it's unarguable that this is their stance.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:02, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you! It needs a because it is mostly inserted UN material. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

For the record, the fact that I copyedit something rather than remove it should not be taken as "approval" of it. It might just mean that I have no knowledge of its accuracy, or haven't bothered to research it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Philip, I didn't see anyone blaming you....the edits can all be seen. No worries. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:48, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
: No, no-one "blamed" me for anything, but Arjen cited me as approving the paragraph in question, simply because I edited it and didn't remove it, so I was just making clear that my editing should not imply approval. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Oh! Well it was his snippy remark that lead me to research him, and I found him to be a smelly old sock, Philip. So no need to bother with him anymore! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-22T16:22:50Z

Britinme: /* AEI and Exxon-Mobil */

{{Protected|TK}}

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Biased Line ==

"Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him"

Whoever said this you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. source that please!

Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(that he has problems trying to give away)

See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I edited in a section called 'Evidence' that was solidly backed up with references to reputable scientific sites. I see they've been reverted for 'Liberal bias'. What's 'Liberal bias' about facts about glacier recession and sea level rise? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:10, 23 March 2007

The article currently says "The theory enjoys wide political support, but many climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." This makes it sound as if there is an even balance between the number of climatologists and meteorologists who agree and disagree with the theory. This is inaccurate. The sentence should read "a minority of climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." I thought we were all about accuracy? The following sentence about 'consensus' is negated by the references to two out of that small minority of climatologists and meteorologists who disagree. By all means their names and views should be left in, to represent their disagreement, but their weight in the scale of scientific opinion should not be over-represented, and it should be balanced by reference to the names of proponents of the theory. I would be happy to make these changes, but the page is locked. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

=== Point 1 ===
"Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical." -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! "Very widely accepted"?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first link says "Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.". It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and "ex-liberal" discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the "ex-liberal" says: "MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well" (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning "overwhelming scientific evidence" but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is "very widely accepted" by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Point 4 ===
I think this is wrong. "Measures to combat global warming/climate change" are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a "fix it yourself" policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==
The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]
: Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Profit Motive ==
While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the citations needed in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Source #16 ==
How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== The whole article ==

The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?
: Global warming has become a new religion with Al Gore as the Pope of global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming "religion" similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled "religions" or "agendas," etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.

==Did you know...==
Does anyone here know that the polar ice caps have been shrinking considerably during the past three years? Now what on Mars could be doing that?

Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: Either it is a natural cycle on Mars, or solar activity increased and is generating more heat. If the later, it disproves pro-global warming scientists. Unless pro-global warming scientists want to claim that Martians are polluting CO2 on Mars to cause global warming, in which there is no evidence of Martians. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It doesn't 'disprove' pro-global warming scientists. It just factors in increased solar activity as another aspect of global warming and says nothing about anthropogenic aspects. Scientists generally believe that solar forcing, as it's called, is in the neighbourhood of one tenth of the total contribution to the heating of the atmosphere. Even this skeptic is citing solar forcing as no more than one third to two thirds contribution, and feels that anthropogenic contributions will be more important over the next century. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar . What are your figures for the extent of polar ice cap recession on Mars compared to the extent of polar ice cap recession on Earth? Take into account too the very different atmospheric conditions prevailing on Mars. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]]1:15, 24 March 2007

== Al Gore is no expert and no saint ==
These lines were removed, but they paint a picture of Al Gore:
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm
Al Gore is no scientist, and he didn't do anything to halt global warming while in office. I think he does a lot of credibility damage to global warming because of these things. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==
Dang, this article is really biased. People need to realise that Earth is changing, and it is being caused by humans. It is sad to see how people are so disrespectful to the work of God. I think that destroying everything great that the Lord has made is a terrible sin and this website should recognise the harm that they are doing to this great gift that God has given us.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 19:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*I believe there is plenty of evidence, and scientists, who do not adopt the panic-mode of Gore and others. Many believe it is a natural occurrence, perhaps hastened by fossil fuel consumption, but nevertheless something that has occurred hundreds of times, in the life of the planet. It is your job, everyone, as contributors and posters here, to edit the page to strike some balance, rather than dismiss opposing thought as morons, and ignore what others say. ''If this cannot be done, I will lock the page''. I hate to do that, because supposedly adults, thinking people, should be able to arrive at a meaningful compromise. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Lots of things are "perfectly natural".... like dying of [[cholera]] at age 28. We do our best to stop that from happening, too. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The way we stopped cholera is by avoiding wishful thinking and carrying out careful experiments. There's a fascinating detective story about how the first researcher proved that it was contaminated water (from a single pump?) that was causing a cholera epidemic in London. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::On the other hand, if we render the planet TOTALLY unlivable, Jesus will HAVE to return and save us all!

::No need to lock the page. I know a lot about what both sides are saying and can perhaps help to craft a balanced article. (I am the original author of [[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks Ed!! Thats the spirit! I posted some links below, so some can take a look, possibly add their own, of actual scientists who just hate all the alarmism. Feel free to IM me anytime. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:*'''Sorry, some felt the need for a fight tonight, I guess, and kept reverting. Just let me know, I will unlock it once the children have stopped their tantrums.''' --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Facts & Links To Check Out... ==

Whose Ox Is Gored? The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804]

The Tempest
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html]

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html]

An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away: [http://newsbusters.org/node/9262]

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

<blockquote>
"...But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

'''Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.'''

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

'''While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”'''

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

'''It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.'''

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

'''“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”'''

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

'''“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”''' </blockquote>
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

== Al Gore Header ==

*Is it really necessary? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

There are hundreds of people, some with star power and knowledge exceeding Al Gore, on both sides of this issue. Why is Al Gore given somemuch time and space in this catagory?

"So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming""

quoted from above. By whose notion is he the leading expert on Global Warming? Where is reference to Hansen, Broecker, Schmidt,Thompson et al, you know people who actually study this stuff for a living? Why focus on Gore? ''---The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Third Day''

:The Democratic Party is largely Liberal, and global warming is a big issue for liberals. Al Gore is one of the most popular Democrats, and he has a book out called "Earth in the Balance". Who else *but* Gore? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
*Were you speaking to me? If so, I am wondering why the info under the Gore heading couldn't be better placed in the body of the article rather than his own heading..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

::Conservatives have [[Richard Lindzen]], who is an actual scientist who makes sense and doesn't fudge the numbers. Liberals only have <s>[[Jim Hansen]],</s> who will never live down his "scary scenarios" remark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::*Oops, I meant [[Stephen Schneider]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I just added a line to the Gore header, to balance it some. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "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." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

:Then go in the history and find the source, and put it back in. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
*Exactly! And be sure to let either Hoji or me know if another revert war starts. ;-) ---~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocking ==

This article is far from complete. When will it be unlocked so we can add information about scientific data showing natural causes for warming, explanation of the solar flux theory, carbon dioxide tracking temps, cosmoclimatology, paleoclimatology, etc. As it stands it makes it look like all we care about is the political side of things. This can't be true, can it? This unsigned comment was made by [[User:Third Day]]

*You are right. I suppose for now, if you would like to post the additions here, they can be pasted over. Or you can contact me, and I could open it up for you to edit. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously nothing was important enough to contact me about, or post here about. Makes me wonder why, upon locking a page, people want it open, for what? If they don't come back with a suggestion or contribution, what is the point? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I've been on the road, hence I did not respond. Some of us have lives outside of this site. I will put together a summary of additions I feel worthy and post here in the talk section. I do wonder if the whole Wiki concept is undermined if the additions need to be vetted by a select few. It may take years for the articles to settle into a reflection of community knowledge, but thats the point, right? Nobody goes to a wiki, any kind of wiki, for the absolute truth on anything. No wiki is a valid source in a peer reviewed paper or even a college paper. It is a way to get a sense of the state of knowledge in a community of users. Wikipedia suffers from the fact that the community of users is so broad as to produce everchanging articles. There are Wikis that restrict the user base to members of certain communities - like a company or agency or users of a particular software. But if Conservapedia wants to surviv and not be mocked it needs to open itself up to slings and arrows. If indeed, we conservatives really believe that our point of view will dominate, then we need not be afraid to open up to liberal edits - cause enough of us will respond in force, and in time will overwhelm. If we just lock down the articles will never evolve (pardon the word) into a compleat, trustworthy wikipedia. OK, I'm done ranting. Off my soap box now :). - Third Day

==Are there any Wikipedia editors here?==
An article on Scientific data withholding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_withholding] has been nominated for deletion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_data_withholding#.5B.5BScientific_data_withholding.5D.5D] If you are a Wikipedia editor, please read the article and vote. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 00:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong question to ask here. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to canvas for votes. You're doing the right thing in the wrong way. Next step is RFC and/or an email to Jimbo. You don't win this kind of battle by stooping to their level. Stay here and work on the climate articles, instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I just learned about "canvassing." I know Connelly is doing it because people are showing up to vote who have not read the article or the Talk page. Teach me the right way to handle this, Ed. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is off-topic, but since I brought it up I better finish it.

:This is the type of battle that it's okay to lose. When people see that the process was followed on one side, but ignored or misused on the other side, then sympathy is genereated for the correct side. Think Rosa Parks. Think [[sit-ins at lunch counters]]. And also think about contributing more here. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Using "Global Climate Change" is not kosher ===

This is a way for carbon alarmists to hedge their bets, and answer critics if there's a series of cold winters. In the 1970s they were ringing the Ice Age bell, now they've settled on warming so they can dial back the economies of the West (while ignoring China). [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The [[global warming controversy]] has replaced the [[Vietnam War]] and [[nuclear power]] as the big-ticket leftist issue. And now that Communism has faded from Europe and is morphing in [[China]], what are all the socialists going to get into but the [[Environment]]? It's the perfect materialistic cause, and there's plenty of money to go around. The US government alone spends over a billion dollars a year on "research" and the United Nations issues assessments every few years (see [[IPCC]]). We all know how objective and fair minded the UN [[General Assembly]] has been on non-environmental issues such as [[human rights]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::note that nuclear power is actully the best canidate for clean, alternative energy; yet, most enviornmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace are vehemently opposed to it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This article is a completely unsourced diatribe. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== pictures ==
We need some pictures--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Admin: Can we use wikipedia.org pictures? --[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:yes if it's public domain.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 04:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

I don't think I would be too wrong in saying that conservative young-earth creationism and skepticism over human-induced climate change usually go together, not all the time of course, but on this site they seem to. Whats strange however, is that geological evidence is cited uncritically in this article in order to discredit human-induced climate change:

:"Global warming is a natural periodic increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and it has always been followed by period of global cooling ... According to geologists, the Earth has experience numerous ice ages."

Even though this is incompatible with young earth creationism. To quote from Conservapedia's own [[Ice Age]] entry:
:"Mainstream geologists and Young Earth creationists are at odds over whether any ice ages have actually occurred."

A clear demonstration, in my opinion, of the type of muddled thinking that conservative fundamentalist ideology generates. (These inconsistent portions of the articles were even added by the same author: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=124708 Global warming edit history] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ice_Age&diff=prev&oldid=113042 Ice Age edit history].)
[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's more a typical demonstration of jumping to conclunions on the part of liberals. I'm the author of the current [[global warming]] article, and I'm not a YEC. :P --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I would also point out that I am the main author of the [[Theory of evolution]] article which is definitely critical the macroevolutionary position, and I am undecided regarding the global warming issue in regards to its possible causes and its possible effects. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::You still add criticism of mainstream geology when it suits you, and uncritically marshal it in your support when it doesn't. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 16:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Orgone has a very good point. A YEC should have no issue with global warming since the earth has not been around long enough to go through these climate changes that geologists say we have gone through.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

'''See also:''' [[Nineteen_Eighty-Four | Doublethink]]

==Liberal bias==

I would like to ask anyone who disagrees with top U.S. climate experts - Harvard and MIT scientists and U.S. state climatologists - to go slowly and carefully when editing this article.

My dad majored in physics, and I got top grades in math and physics. There is a lot of liberal misinformation about [[Anthropogenic global warming]] tied to the UN-promoted [[Kyoto Protocol]], the global warming treaty which seeks a "[[carbon tax]]" and other forms of [[emissions trading]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well ''my'' dad is bigger than ''your'' dad so ''there''! (Childish of me i know, but i couldn't resist it!) :-p [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Java, I agree with some of your edits, but I think that the first paragraph should stick to undisputed facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:I aded references. [[User:Java|Java]] 17:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all references tell the truth. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Is this a joke? I referenced from Nature, PNAS, Science and GISS. Why should the current references tell the truth? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::::for 1 thing anything talking about "the last 420,000 years" is wrong. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am a little vexed. Do you want to put me on? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

*Java, YEC's, since they don't believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years or so, won't accept those figures. RSchlafly, I have once again protected this article, so stop this kind of constant arguing. Please keep an eye peeled for our more Liberal Sysop's opening it up. Thanks! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::As I pointed out above in '''Ideological Inconsistencies''', if this site is to view everything through the distorting mirror that is YEC, why do the references to [[Ice Age]]s stay in the introductory section? [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Um, please freeze on a version with facts ==

Not to rock the boat or anything, but the current un-editable version of the Global Warming page has essentially no scientific merit. Could someone please revert to a version with some actual discussion of global warming. I'm happy to write it. It involves sunshine, blackbody radiation, the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide, and an explanation of climate feedbacks. -Ifixthings

: I agree. Describe global warming accurately first. Get into the politics later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*Cool, Roger. Open it, edit it, do whatever. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, I unlocked it. Please keep science and politics separate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I love the nice accurate new version. I give it five minutes before it's reverted.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
**Yeah, it didn't last long, which is stupid because it was much more correct.[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 17:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh Ed Poor... You make me an sad panda, those corrections you made are quite horrible. The version by Ifixthings was a good one, and the missing citations could be corrected quite fast, already found several good and reliable sources. Wikintrepeter at least fixed the most outrageous claims. But still some are left like: "However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject" Still at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries support the claim and only one to my knowledge opposes it, that being American Association of Petroleum Geologists. And to be honest, them opposing it isn't really surprising. Im seriously baffled how one can deny the scientific consensus here, and seeing what i claim to be intellectual dishonesty makes me really sad, as this is something which will directly affect our lives and if not ours then at least our children's. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Both of the APA's voted that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Does that make it true? Are you quite sure their votes were not politically motivated?

:It doesn't matter how many '''groups''' take a stand on a matter of science. It only matters what the science actually is. But if you care about polls, what percent of climate scientists support or oppose the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] theory? If you know, do speak up. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, at minimum it matters what groups take a position since you claimed that "the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject". Even if that weren't the issue at hand, the number of people who are experts on an issue and have come to a conclusion a certain way about the issue does matter. While it doesn't alter who is correct in an absolute sense it does alter the estimated probability of an opinion being correct for someone who is trying to get some idea what to do and who does not have the time or resources to go through all the data that the experts do. That logic applies to any application of a scientific endeavor. For example there are still some geocentrists, the government when formulating policy does not need to worry about them. This is true for a politician whether or not that politician has bothered to understand what is wrong with geocentrism. Note that I'm not saying that global warming is equivalent to geocentrism but making the point that when evaluating claims on limited data or resources, the opinion of the vast majority matters. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::JoshuaZ allready gave so good answer that i have little to add to it. Im not sure if there has been done any exact polls on how many percentage of the experts on this area support or opposes anthropogenic global warming, but ill try to find one. Alltho i think that allready the number of supporting scientific societies and academies of science and the lack of opposing ones gives an quite good picture of the situation. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A trustworthy article should give scientific facts, don't you agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I really dont see where you are aiming at with this, as the link i just gave on the conversation bit below, shows that allready at year 2000 there where no studyes to be found that opposed the concencus, but offcourse there will allways be some "scientists" who disagree. if you are aiming for universal acceptance of an theory before it can be called an scientific fact, i must say we really dont have any. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

''The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years,'' YECs why don`t you delete this phrase and block the article? --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Joshua, the top experts say it's natural, and surveys of climatologists agree. What exactly is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: That's simply false. The UN report which you dislike was written by the top experts, who signed off on it. Again, the vast majority of the relevant scientific organizations have agreed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I've asked you twice for proof of this. I ask you here one last time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Sigh. Did you read what I wrote on your talk page or not? Almost every single author of the reports(and I listed a few as examples) is a respected scientist and there are about 40 authors to each report. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Found atleast [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 this] as an partial answer to the question here and above, alltho the report is already quite old and rapid progress has been made during few years, even at year 2000 this study didn't found '''any''' studies that disagreed with the consensus. That should already tell something. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: Hmm, interesting quote from that "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

A literature search by a [[Kyoto Protocol]] supporter is not the same as a study or a survey. It means nothing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Celsius ==

How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the [[Little Ice Age]] in 1850. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would prefer Kelvin. --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). [[User:Human|Human]] 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary "looks like". I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Political bias==

The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And ''Science'' might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's "not of interest to their readers". I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Um, what? Science isn't a "popular journal" but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No? ''This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.'' --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says "I agree with the IPCC about (anything)." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.
:And a recent examples:
Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 [[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666

== Independent scientists such as ... [[Fred Singer]] ==

Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, well by "independent" I just meant "speaking for himself", "not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line". Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Like [[James Hansen]] - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/][http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183]
:::Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::False citation: #11 doesn't say he was told not to talk about global warming, it just says that official press releases would be scrutinized. #12 doesn't mention his ability to talk at all; in it Hansen accuses Bush of stifling evidence (but without giving any examples of this supposed stifling). #13 says "Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing" but doesn't give the wording of this supposed "threat" or even a summary of it.

:::This is typical of liberals: they make claims which have no evidence. The entire case on global warming consists of claims that "the world's top scientists agree" but they give no polls to support this "consensus" claim. They say that "models predict" but when the models are contradicted by observations they say that "models aren't predictions". They say it's carbon dioxide, but CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when there was cooling, and anyway the climate record of the last 400 million years show an 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change - CO2 '''follows''' temperature, rather than driving it.

:::They are politicizing science while running a well orchestrated PR campaign of calling the kettle black. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so...... ==

Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/what_happened_predictions.html][http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/failpred.html] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc).

Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.asp?pr=2178] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.

Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.
:*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
:Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation? ==

I removed this uncited statement:

"However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position."

Can anyone give a citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the "no proof" claim should be taken out.

:But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

One of the citations: [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This "study" has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/FORUM.pdf] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

:Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

This paragraph does not distinguish between "global warming", i.e., a rise in temperature and "the Global Warming theory", i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.

Also undefined is "the effects of Global Warming". What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism Edit==
I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's ok, no problem. I was just surprised when I looked and right after my edit it said 'removed vandalism'. ;-) I didn't catch it myself until I saw your change. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

"The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years" - not according to this wiki's article on [[Ice Age]]. You can't have it both ways, did they occur, and is the earth at least 2,000,000 years old, or did they not and is it not? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

........--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationary scientists]] believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf ''What about the Ice Age?''], ''The Creation Answers Book'', Chapter 16). I guess I was hoping for a clearer answer than "........", which I don't understand. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cite Leading Group of Climate Change Skeptics? ==

As the IPCC is included in the introduction to this entry, it's appropriate that the leading group of climate change skeptics be cited, instead of individual scientists. Does anybody know what the appropriate body to cite is? I'm aware of "The Friends of Science", but I believe they're exclusively Canadian. [[User:Dbarefoot|Dbarefoot]] 08:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

I posit that if we're going to lay out the groups on both side of the global warming debate, they ought to be qualified equally, or not at all. I don't think these qualifiers are appropriate in introductions--they belong in the particular entries about the individuals or groups.

As I've queried above, I think it makes sense to describe the leading group of climate change skeptics or doubters, as they seem a natural counterpoint to the IPCC. Citing individual scientists seems too anecdotal for an encyclopedia, which ought to seek to be conclusive.

== " removing liberalness" ==

Is now given as a reason to alter an article? Ironically, the rather few "non-liberal" qualifiers I have ever typed were all reverted. Maybe because a liberal is not allowed to say these things? Or perhaps, just because since I can't understand them, I can't push the POV appropriately? [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Look at the statement i removed. i removed it because it was unsourced. perhaps i should have said "removing unsourced statement"[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Remember, liberal sources don't count! --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== How about these changes? ==

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.[Citation Needed]

I was going to use -> http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806 <- this as a citation before the page got locked :)

....and also I must take issue with this statement. "The scenario most postulated is dust storms.[4]"

Dust storms are not the "most" postulated -- The sun's solar cycles are just as much of a plausable theory....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

:I have no problem with that change, and I'm the one who entered the original information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neptune ==

I just read today that global warming has been found to be occurring on Neptune. It matches the same pattern for the time period found upon Mars and earth. It may be safe to assume that is not due to human intervention. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Where did you see this? I'd be very interested in reading about this in more detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950. I hope this is enough information to 'dig' it up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Found it. The paper is interesting. The correlation found was positive but not statistically significant between the brightness of Neptune and the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, from my reading it looks like one might expect a significant correlation even if most of the recent warming on earth is anthropogenic (note that this isn't my area of expertise so that could be painfully wrong). It should be interesting to see where this goes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I take no personal position on the issue, but I do believe any information that could be meaningful to form a complete picture should be included. That Mars and Neptune are both heating up over the same time period as the earth, and in the case of Mars even the temperature amount is similar, is certainly notable. It seems to me there is too much of an effort to dismiss information that would appear to be at odds with the concept that global warming is caused by humans, and that is unfortunate. (Note: I don't count global warming on Pluto due to Pluto's strange orbit. It has too many oddities, from my point of view, to be put in the same category.) Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the header title before posting here, I hope I didn't step on any toes. The Header ''was'' '''Global Warming on other Planets''' Which I changed to '''Warming ''of'' other Planets'''. I did this to prevent confusion, though indeed the other planets are ''also'' globes but usually, (in my experience) "global" means the sum and totality of Earth. Feel free to change it back if'n you want. - [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the talk message, and no offense taken. I've found that articles that discuss other planets usually still use the term global warming. For instance it has been popular to talk about global warming on Venus over the last decade or so, and the term global warming is used. The source about global warming on Mars also used the words global warming and Mars in the title. For these reasons I felt it was appropriate to keep the header title with global warming. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have [[experiment]]al evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is it an error? No. It is correct as it is. "Belief" means to give assent to an idea. It does not mean, despite the way some atheistic types think of it, as accepting an idea without evidence or good reason.
:Is it the best way to word it? Maybe not, but I'm not happy with your suggestion either. If I remember, I'll have more of a think about it.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::How about "Secular scientists think"? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::To my mind, "believe" is the better word. "Think" to me indicates some doubt, whereas "believe" can be a very strong conviction. But not everybody sees it that way, so I'll agree to changing it to "think", and in fact I've just done that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*This article has taken on drastic changes, it is a diluted, semi-neutral piece. It needs to be overhauled without the Liberal bias, and the removed material from warming skeptics added back. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
What is wrong with semi-neutral??? Is it only good if it carries a right wing arch-conservative bent?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Britnme, it is not true that getting peer-reviewed work published is a guarantee that it is based on experimental evidence. It only means that no obvious errors were found, and that the editor thinks it will interest his readers.

:Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==AGW==

Cut from article:

:... contrasts with the effects predicted for [[anthropogenic global warming]].

What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

Hi Dan, I'd like to point out that it is possible for Creation Scientists to believe in global warming as well, but they would not attach a 2 million year period of ice ages. ICR, for instance, takes a neutral view on global warming believing so far that the case has not been made satisfactorily, but they are open to ongoing evidence that may steer their opinion one way or the other if more concrete information is found. But even if they did feel global warming has been shown to be caused by humans, they still would not believe the earth is 2 million years old. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, the age issue would apply only to Young Earth Creationists. I will freely admit that more creation scientists are global warming skeptics than other scientists, but I don't think we need to make the distinction here, especially because, as you said, groups like ICR take a neutral stance on it, so it's a separate issue. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::The edit was to a paragraph about ice ages, not about global warming itself. That's why it is appropriate to qualify it somehow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Falsehood==

The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term "liberal falsehood" to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hockey Stick ==

This seems like an inappropriate graph to me. The gray are the real values, but they've been averaged to get a blue line to smooth out large fluctuations. Highlighting the ups and downs of the gray would give a very different picture. Also, it only deals with the northern hemisphere, which makes the overall numbers incomplete for the 'global' part of global warming. (I realize the ice samples were only taken from the north pole, but we've got another pole that needs to be checked for balance if those figures are to be as meaningful as they are made to appear.) Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

The linked citation reads: ''AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. ExxonMobil gave AEI approximately $925,000 between 1998 and 2003.''

Jacques, why do you keep cutting out the part about the AEI trying to buy scientists? It's got a citation. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Clay mathematics institute also offer money rewards, do you think it's trying to buy scientists?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I won't have any idea until you put a link in there for a cite, so I can read it for myself. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::The Nobel Prize committee make their award on the basis of what someone has done (i.e. a reward) not on the basis of getting someone to prove or do something (i.e. a bribe). [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Let me guess--you own stock in Exxon? Such defensiveness ill-becomes someone with no money in this fight. --23:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And you own stock in solar power companies.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have a cite with a very long list of opponents to the global warming theory who have been sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. This is relevant to support the statement that such large oil industry companies are leading opponents of the theory. The line about offering $10,000 can be omitted if it's felt to be irrelevant.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Please do--then at least I won't get banned for an 'edit war'. And Jacques, PLEASE post a list of scientists being bankrolled by the massive Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, once you get it together. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::well, your thinking seems to be: tax money = good, donation = evil. Private donation automatically corrupt people and tax money does not, and any scientist who accept private donation is an Evil Communist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::man what
::::::oooookay. Let me make sure I understand your 'logic' here. Basically, you're saying that all these scientists, both the goverment-funded and the Exxon-funded, are equally corrupt, and should be treated with exactly the same amount of credibility, the same way that 'researchers' for the [[Tobacco institute]] were treated when they were the only doctors on Earth who failed to find a connection between smoking and lung diseases. Am I understanding your 'reasoning' here, so far? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::::So you are saying that you would have believed it when Soviet Union government funded Scientists claimed they have 'disproved' Darwinian evolution?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Considering how many Darwinists they had to ship off to Siberia to do it? Maybe not. Anyway, working off of your apparent belief that the Government is funding Global Warming research for its own insidious ends, what's the Bush-controlled US government's incentive to _support_ the Global Warming Theory? (Especially seeing how George is an oilman himself.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::Of course, Soviet government would never tell you that they ship dissenters overseas now would they. And despite what you may think, George Bush does not control the distribution of science funding.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::::You don't know where [[Siberia]] is, do you. And what's the rest of the [[Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy]]'s reason for their immense hoax? --00:34, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::"equally corrupt", or "equally likely to be corrupt"? Surely nobody here is claiming that either side is corrupt, merely suggesting that they might be account where the money is coming from. From that point of view, I would say yes, each side is ''equally likely'' to be corrupt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I am quite happy with the current version, which is a simple statement of fact - thank you for the edit, Jaques, which I think improves it. Regarding tobacco/lung diseases mentioned, I wonder if on the article about [[Richard Lindzen]] it should be mentioned how much money he received from the tobacco industry to dispute the connection between tobacco and lung diseases. Not that I would suggest for one moment that the gentleman does not believe what he advocates. I'm sure he is quite sincere--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'll bet he's sincere. Nothing produces true sincerity like a regular paycheck. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18121730/site/newsweek/ Richard Lindzen has already responded to this sort of smearing tactics by enviornmentalists.] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:07, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::"If a man's paycheck depends on him not understanding something, you can pretty well depend on him not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair's Law.

:::::::The wording that Jaques keeps deleting was previously approved by sysop Phillip J Rayment. These deletions smack of vandalism are against the CP commandments. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Standard Wikipedia tactic. Come into channel, blame someone for rules violations, get him booted, take over, right? It worked for SlimVirgin over there. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*I will be the decider of that sock, not you. I suggest you keep to productive edits, and off the talk pages. Unfortunately, Arjen was a sock of BrianCo, and actually even posted on the user page. Both gone now. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I am still not getting what's wrong with an oil company funding global warming research. Or what is significant about some of that research being different from the consensus. What do the critics think -- that ExxonMobil should ignore the issue? That all research should just endorse what has already been published? I made a change to drop some of the goofy conspiratorial innuendo. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::There's no innuendo about a statement of fact - this company gave this much money to these organizations over this period of time, and the organizations all had one thing in common. It's not a conspiracy - it's a perfectly straightforward transaction as far as I can see. There's no secret about it and the figures are public. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you! It needs a because it is mostly inserted UN material. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

For the record, the fact that I copyedit something rather than remove it should not be taken as "approval" of it. It might just mean that I have no knowledge of its accuracy, or haven't bothered to research it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Philip, I didn't see anyone blaming you....the edits can all be seen. No worries. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:48, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
: No, no-one "blamed" me for anything, but Arjen cited me as approving the paragraph in question, simply because I edited it and didn't remove it, so I was just making clear that my editing should not imply approval. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Oh! Well it was his snippy remark that lead me to research him, and I found him to be a smelly old sock, Philip. So no need to bother with him anymore! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Global warming

2007-05-22T16:19:23Z

Britinme: /* Politics of global warming */ Reinstated factual and cited statement about organizations supported by Exxon-Mobil.

'''Global warming''' is the term ascribed to an increase in the [[global mean temperature]]. Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen just over one degree since 1850.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref>

Assessments by the [[United Nations]] promote the view that most of the warming since around 1850 is likely human-caused. In February, 2007, the [[IPCC|Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], a body of scientists<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704280477apr29,1,4275902.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</ref> established by the [[United Nations]], released their fourth assessment report on climate change. That report concluded that most of recent global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm</ref>. It says that increases in atmospheric concentrations of [[greenhouse gas]]es cause warming.

According to evolutionary scientists, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle.

==The Hockey Stick Reconstruction==
[[Image:Hockey stick chart ipcc.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Hockey Stick graph in 2001 IPCC report shows blue proxy values along the "shaft" with red instrumental values superimposed as the "blade"]]
One of the main arguments for anthropogenic global warming during the 3rd IPCC report was a temperature reconstruction done by climatologist Michael Mann. The resulting graph of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is shaped like a hockey stick, and it is used as evidence for the unusualness of the earth's temperature in the past few decades. However, Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick later discovered a serious flaw in the statistical methods used to construct the hockey stick graph. Because of this, the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC included several different temperature reconstruction methods instead of favoring just one hypothesis.

==Natural variability of the climate system==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Global Warming on other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

==Politics of global warming==

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the second half of the 20th Century, and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in [[carbon dioxide]] and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

58% of the 279 climate scientists working at US federal agences who responded to a survey by The Union of Concerned Scientists reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years and that they had experienced at least one of these constraints:
* “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications.
* Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”.
* Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings.
* “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”.
* “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”.
* “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

However, those who believe that either global warming is not a real phenomenon or that humanity's contribution to it has been overstated have made similar complaints. The UCS states in its report about the IPCC <ref> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html </ref>
<blockquote>Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues. Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a difficult position to defend. </blockquote>
<blockquote> Furthermore, according to IPCC principles, lead authors are “required to record views in the text which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view.”</blockquote>

There is widely held belief among the American public that global warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of global warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that global warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority (8%) believe that global warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

The fossil-fuel industry could be adversely affected by global warming legislation. Exxon-Mobil has been accused of supporting research on global warming, and some of that has differed from conventional wisdom. Between 1998 and 2005 they gave approximately $16 million to organizations that dispute the scientific consensus on global warming. <ref>http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf</ref> <ref>http://www.net.org/warming/skeptic.vtml </ref> <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php</ref>.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm Global warming smear targets]
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]

==Critique of the Hokey Stick Reconstruction==
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by [[Michael Mann]]
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.

==References==

<references/>

[[category:earth science]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Jonah (prophet)

2007-05-22T16:15:23Z

Britinme: /* Challenge from skeptics */

'''Jonah''' is the prophet in the [[Book of Jonah]] famous for being swallowed by a great fish.
== According to the book of Jonah ==
=== Jonah's call to prophesy ===
God orders Jonah to prophesy to the city of Nineveh.<ref>{{hnb|Zondervan|2002}}, JNH 1:2</ref> Jonah despises the Assyrians and attempts to avoid God's command by going to Joppa and sailing to Tarshish, the opposite direction and as far to the west as he could go.<ref>{{hnb|Zondervan|2002}}, JNH 1:3-4</ref> A huge storm arises while Jonah is fleeing.<ref>{{hnb|Zondervan|2002}}, JNH 1:4-6</ref> The sailors realize this is no ordinary storm, cast lots, and learn that Jonah is to blame.<ref>{{hnb|Zondervan|2002}}, JHN 1:7</ref> Jonah admits he is the cause,<ref>{{hnb|Zondervan|2002}}, JNH 1:9-11</ref> and states that if he is thrown overboard, the storm will cease.<ref>{{hnb|Zondervan|2002}}, JHN 1:12</ref> The sailors try to find some other way to escape the storm, but eventually throw Jonah overboard; the seas are calmed,<ref>{{hnb|Zondervan|2002}}, JNH 1:15</ref> the sailors fear God and make sacrifices and vows to him.<ref>{{hnb|Zondervan|2002}}, JHN 1:16</ref>

The Lord has a great fish swallow Jonah. While Jonah is inside the fish, he prays to God admitting his sin. After 3 days and nights, God has the fish vomit Jonah out.<ref>{{hnb|Zondervan|2002}}, JHN 1:17 - 2:10</ref>

=== Jonah's prophesies ===

(To be added)

== Accuracy of the account of the fish ==


The NIV Bible commentary explains that the 3 days and 3 nights could mean as little as 1 day and parts of 2 others based upon how time was described in the Hebrew culture,<ref>{{hnb|Ref=CITEREFBarkerKohlenberger1999|Barker and Kohlenberger|1999}}</ref>

=== Jesus speaking on the story of Jonah ===

According the the ''Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties'', Jesus accepted the facticity of Jonah's sojourn in the belly of a fish.<ref>{{hnb|Archer|1982}}</ref> For example, in the [[book of Matthew]] and [[book of Luke|Luke]], Jesus stated that he would repeat the miracle of Jonah:

{{cquote|MT 12:39 <nowiki>[Jesus]</nowiki> answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.<ref>{{hnb|Zondervan|2002}}, MT 12:39-41, see also MT 16:4, LK 11:29-32, </ref>}}

Other theologians believe that Jesus is using an illustration in the same way that we might quote one of His parables, and that this does not necessarily mean that the events literally happened just as the parables of Jesus did not literally happen. <ref> http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/J/JONAH,+THE+BOOK+OF/ </ref>

=== Other Bible Commentators on Jonah ===

Some theologians believe that the story of Jonah and the whale is an [[allegorical|allegory]] prefiguring of the three days between the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. <ref> http://www.answers.com/topic/typology-theology</ref> <ref> http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1253 </ref>

Some Jewish scholars believe that it is a [[Midrash]] <ref> http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/bible/TO_Prophets_1460/TOLiteraryProphets/MinorProphets/JonahSimon.htm </ref>

While some theological commentators believe the story is a [[satire]] <ref> http://seminary.csl.edu/facultypubs/TheologyandPractice/tabid/87/ctl/Details/mid/494/ItemID/40/Default.aspx </ref>.

According to some rabbinical traditions, the great fish that swallowed Jonah had been created in the begining for the purpose of swallowing Jonah.<ref>{{hnb|Ref=CITEREFHirschBuddeSchechter2002|Hirsch, Budde, and Schechter|2002}}</ref>

== Challenge from skeptics ==

Some skeptics note that a whale can not swallow a human being, but it should be noted the text never makes reference to the great fish being a whale.<ref>http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/shore_whaling_industry.html</ref> Moreover, regardless of the species of creature that was said to have swallowed Jonah, skeptics claim that it is unlikely that he would have remained unaffected by normal digestive processes, since food recovered from the belly of any large creature shows signs of corrosion by digestive acids.

==References==
<references/>
== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Archer
| Given = G.
| Year = 2006
| Title = Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
| Publisher = Zondervan Publishing Company
| ID = ISBN 978-0310435709
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Barker
| Given1 = Kenneth L.
| Surname2 = Kohlenberger
| Given2 = John R., III
| Year = 1999
| Title = NIV Bible Commentary
| Publisher = Zondervan Publishing Company
| ID = ISBN 978-0310578505
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Hirsch
| Given1 = Emil G.
| Surname2 = Budde
| Given2 = Karl
| Surname3 = Schechter
| Given3 = Solomon
| Year = 2002
| Title = Jonah
| Publisher = JewishEncyclopedia.com
| URL = http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=388&letter=J
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-11
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Zondervan
| Year = 2002
| Title = Zondervan NIV Study Bible
| Publisher = Zondervan Publishing Company
| ID = ISBN 978-0310929550
}}

[[Category:Biblical persons]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-22T03:42:08Z

Britinme: /* AEI and Exxon-Mobil */

{{Protected|TK}}

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Biased Line ==

"Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him"

Whoever said this you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. source that please!

Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(that he has problems trying to give away)

See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I edited in a section called 'Evidence' that was solidly backed up with references to reputable scientific sites. I see they've been reverted for 'Liberal bias'. What's 'Liberal bias' about facts about glacier recession and sea level rise? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:10, 23 March 2007

The article currently says "The theory enjoys wide political support, but many climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." This makes it sound as if there is an even balance between the number of climatologists and meteorologists who agree and disagree with the theory. This is inaccurate. The sentence should read "a minority of climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." I thought we were all about accuracy? The following sentence about 'consensus' is negated by the references to two out of that small minority of climatologists and meteorologists who disagree. By all means their names and views should be left in, to represent their disagreement, but their weight in the scale of scientific opinion should not be over-represented, and it should be balanced by reference to the names of proponents of the theory. I would be happy to make these changes, but the page is locked. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

=== Point 1 ===
"Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical." -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! "Very widely accepted"?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first link says "Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.". It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and "ex-liberal" discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the "ex-liberal" says: "MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well" (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning "overwhelming scientific evidence" but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is "very widely accepted" by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Point 4 ===
I think this is wrong. "Measures to combat global warming/climate change" are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a "fix it yourself" policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==
The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]
: Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Profit Motive ==
While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the citations needed in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Source #16 ==
How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== The whole article ==

The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?
: Global warming has become a new religion with Al Gore as the Pope of global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming "religion" similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled "religions" or "agendas," etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.

==Did you know...==
Does anyone here know that the polar ice caps have been shrinking considerably during the past three years? Now what on Mars could be doing that?

Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: Either it is a natural cycle on Mars, or solar activity increased and is generating more heat. If the later, it disproves pro-global warming scientists. Unless pro-global warming scientists want to claim that Martians are polluting CO2 on Mars to cause global warming, in which there is no evidence of Martians. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It doesn't 'disprove' pro-global warming scientists. It just factors in increased solar activity as another aspect of global warming and says nothing about anthropogenic aspects. Scientists generally believe that solar forcing, as it's called, is in the neighbourhood of one tenth of the total contribution to the heating of the atmosphere. Even this skeptic is citing solar forcing as no more than one third to two thirds contribution, and feels that anthropogenic contributions will be more important over the next century. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar . What are your figures for the extent of polar ice cap recession on Mars compared to the extent of polar ice cap recession on Earth? Take into account too the very different atmospheric conditions prevailing on Mars. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]]1:15, 24 March 2007

== Al Gore is no expert and no saint ==
These lines were removed, but they paint a picture of Al Gore:
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm
Al Gore is no scientist, and he didn't do anything to halt global warming while in office. I think he does a lot of credibility damage to global warming because of these things. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==
Dang, this article is really biased. People need to realise that Earth is changing, and it is being caused by humans. It is sad to see how people are so disrespectful to the work of God. I think that destroying everything great that the Lord has made is a terrible sin and this website should recognise the harm that they are doing to this great gift that God has given us.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 19:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*I believe there is plenty of evidence, and scientists, who do not adopt the panic-mode of Gore and others. Many believe it is a natural occurrence, perhaps hastened by fossil fuel consumption, but nevertheless something that has occurred hundreds of times, in the life of the planet. It is your job, everyone, as contributors and posters here, to edit the page to strike some balance, rather than dismiss opposing thought as morons, and ignore what others say. ''If this cannot be done, I will lock the page''. I hate to do that, because supposedly adults, thinking people, should be able to arrive at a meaningful compromise. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Lots of things are "perfectly natural".... like dying of [[cholera]] at age 28. We do our best to stop that from happening, too. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The way we stopped cholera is by avoiding wishful thinking and carrying out careful experiments. There's a fascinating detective story about how the first researcher proved that it was contaminated water (from a single pump?) that was causing a cholera epidemic in London. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::On the other hand, if we render the planet TOTALLY unlivable, Jesus will HAVE to return and save us all!

::No need to lock the page. I know a lot about what both sides are saying and can perhaps help to craft a balanced article. (I am the original author of [[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks Ed!! Thats the spirit! I posted some links below, so some can take a look, possibly add their own, of actual scientists who just hate all the alarmism. Feel free to IM me anytime. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:*'''Sorry, some felt the need for a fight tonight, I guess, and kept reverting. Just let me know, I will unlock it once the children have stopped their tantrums.''' --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Facts & Links To Check Out... ==

Whose Ox Is Gored? The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804]

The Tempest
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html]

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html]

An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away: [http://newsbusters.org/node/9262]

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

<blockquote>
"...But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

'''Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.'''

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

'''While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”'''

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

'''It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.'''

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

'''“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”'''

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

'''“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”''' </blockquote>
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

== Al Gore Header ==

*Is it really necessary? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

There are hundreds of people, some with star power and knowledge exceeding Al Gore, on both sides of this issue. Why is Al Gore given somemuch time and space in this catagory?

"So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming""

quoted from above. By whose notion is he the leading expert on Global Warming? Where is reference to Hansen, Broecker, Schmidt,Thompson et al, you know people who actually study this stuff for a living? Why focus on Gore? ''---The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Third Day''

:The Democratic Party is largely Liberal, and global warming is a big issue for liberals. Al Gore is one of the most popular Democrats, and he has a book out called "Earth in the Balance". Who else *but* Gore? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
*Were you speaking to me? If so, I am wondering why the info under the Gore heading couldn't be better placed in the body of the article rather than his own heading..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

::Conservatives have [[Richard Lindzen]], who is an actual scientist who makes sense and doesn't fudge the numbers. Liberals only have <s>[[Jim Hansen]],</s> who will never live down his "scary scenarios" remark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::*Oops, I meant [[Stephen Schneider]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I just added a line to the Gore header, to balance it some. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "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." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

:Then go in the history and find the source, and put it back in. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
*Exactly! And be sure to let either Hoji or me know if another revert war starts. ;-) ---~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocking ==

This article is far from complete. When will it be unlocked so we can add information about scientific data showing natural causes for warming, explanation of the solar flux theory, carbon dioxide tracking temps, cosmoclimatology, paleoclimatology, etc. As it stands it makes it look like all we care about is the political side of things. This can't be true, can it? This unsigned comment was made by [[User:Third Day]]

*You are right. I suppose for now, if you would like to post the additions here, they can be pasted over. Or you can contact me, and I could open it up for you to edit. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously nothing was important enough to contact me about, or post here about. Makes me wonder why, upon locking a page, people want it open, for what? If they don't come back with a suggestion or contribution, what is the point? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I've been on the road, hence I did not respond. Some of us have lives outside of this site. I will put together a summary of additions I feel worthy and post here in the talk section. I do wonder if the whole Wiki concept is undermined if the additions need to be vetted by a select few. It may take years for the articles to settle into a reflection of community knowledge, but thats the point, right? Nobody goes to a wiki, any kind of wiki, for the absolute truth on anything. No wiki is a valid source in a peer reviewed paper or even a college paper. It is a way to get a sense of the state of knowledge in a community of users. Wikipedia suffers from the fact that the community of users is so broad as to produce everchanging articles. There are Wikis that restrict the user base to members of certain communities - like a company or agency or users of a particular software. But if Conservapedia wants to surviv and not be mocked it needs to open itself up to slings and arrows. If indeed, we conservatives really believe that our point of view will dominate, then we need not be afraid to open up to liberal edits - cause enough of us will respond in force, and in time will overwhelm. If we just lock down the articles will never evolve (pardon the word) into a compleat, trustworthy wikipedia. OK, I'm done ranting. Off my soap box now :). - Third Day

==Are there any Wikipedia editors here?==
An article on Scientific data withholding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_withholding] has been nominated for deletion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_data_withholding#.5B.5BScientific_data_withholding.5D.5D] If you are a Wikipedia editor, please read the article and vote. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 00:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong question to ask here. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to canvas for votes. You're doing the right thing in the wrong way. Next step is RFC and/or an email to Jimbo. You don't win this kind of battle by stooping to their level. Stay here and work on the climate articles, instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I just learned about "canvassing." I know Connelly is doing it because people are showing up to vote who have not read the article or the Talk page. Teach me the right way to handle this, Ed. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is off-topic, but since I brought it up I better finish it.

:This is the type of battle that it's okay to lose. When people see that the process was followed on one side, but ignored or misused on the other side, then sympathy is genereated for the correct side. Think Rosa Parks. Think [[sit-ins at lunch counters]]. And also think about contributing more here. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Using "Global Climate Change" is not kosher ===

This is a way for carbon alarmists to hedge their bets, and answer critics if there's a series of cold winters. In the 1970s they were ringing the Ice Age bell, now they've settled on warming so they can dial back the economies of the West (while ignoring China). [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The [[global warming controversy]] has replaced the [[Vietnam War]] and [[nuclear power]] as the big-ticket leftist issue. And now that Communism has faded from Europe and is morphing in [[China]], what are all the socialists going to get into but the [[Environment]]? It's the perfect materialistic cause, and there's plenty of money to go around. The US government alone spends over a billion dollars a year on "research" and the United Nations issues assessments every few years (see [[IPCC]]). We all know how objective and fair minded the UN [[General Assembly]] has been on non-environmental issues such as [[human rights]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::note that nuclear power is actully the best canidate for clean, alternative energy; yet, most enviornmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace are vehemently opposed to it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This article is a completely unsourced diatribe. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== pictures ==
We need some pictures--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Admin: Can we use wikipedia.org pictures? --[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:yes if it's public domain.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 04:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

I don't think I would be too wrong in saying that conservative young-earth creationism and skepticism over human-induced climate change usually go together, not all the time of course, but on this site they seem to. Whats strange however, is that geological evidence is cited uncritically in this article in order to discredit human-induced climate change:

:"Global warming is a natural periodic increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and it has always been followed by period of global cooling ... According to geologists, the Earth has experience numerous ice ages."

Even though this is incompatible with young earth creationism. To quote from Conservapedia's own [[Ice Age]] entry:
:"Mainstream geologists and Young Earth creationists are at odds over whether any ice ages have actually occurred."

A clear demonstration, in my opinion, of the type of muddled thinking that conservative fundamentalist ideology generates. (These inconsistent portions of the articles were even added by the same author: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=124708 Global warming edit history] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ice_Age&diff=prev&oldid=113042 Ice Age edit history].)
[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's more a typical demonstration of jumping to conclunions on the part of liberals. I'm the author of the current [[global warming]] article, and I'm not a YEC. :P --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I would also point out that I am the main author of the [[Theory of evolution]] article which is definitely critical the macroevolutionary position, and I am undecided regarding the global warming issue in regards to its possible causes and its possible effects. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::You still add criticism of mainstream geology when it suits you, and uncritically marshal it in your support when it doesn't. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 16:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Orgone has a very good point. A YEC should have no issue with global warming since the earth has not been around long enough to go through these climate changes that geologists say we have gone through.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

'''See also:''' [[Nineteen_Eighty-Four | Doublethink]]

==Liberal bias==

I would like to ask anyone who disagrees with top U.S. climate experts - Harvard and MIT scientists and U.S. state climatologists - to go slowly and carefully when editing this article.

My dad majored in physics, and I got top grades in math and physics. There is a lot of liberal misinformation about [[Anthropogenic global warming]] tied to the UN-promoted [[Kyoto Protocol]], the global warming treaty which seeks a "[[carbon tax]]" and other forms of [[emissions trading]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well ''my'' dad is bigger than ''your'' dad so ''there''! (Childish of me i know, but i couldn't resist it!) :-p [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Java, I agree with some of your edits, but I think that the first paragraph should stick to undisputed facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:I aded references. [[User:Java|Java]] 17:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all references tell the truth. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Is this a joke? I referenced from Nature, PNAS, Science and GISS. Why should the current references tell the truth? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::::for 1 thing anything talking about "the last 420,000 years" is wrong. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am a little vexed. Do you want to put me on? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

*Java, YEC's, since they don't believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years or so, won't accept those figures. RSchlafly, I have once again protected this article, so stop this kind of constant arguing. Please keep an eye peeled for our more Liberal Sysop's opening it up. Thanks! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::As I pointed out above in '''Ideological Inconsistencies''', if this site is to view everything through the distorting mirror that is YEC, why do the references to [[Ice Age]]s stay in the introductory section? [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Um, please freeze on a version with facts ==

Not to rock the boat or anything, but the current un-editable version of the Global Warming page has essentially no scientific merit. Could someone please revert to a version with some actual discussion of global warming. I'm happy to write it. It involves sunshine, blackbody radiation, the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide, and an explanation of climate feedbacks. -Ifixthings

: I agree. Describe global warming accurately first. Get into the politics later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*Cool, Roger. Open it, edit it, do whatever. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, I unlocked it. Please keep science and politics separate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I love the nice accurate new version. I give it five minutes before it's reverted.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
**Yeah, it didn't last long, which is stupid because it was much more correct.[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 17:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh Ed Poor... You make me an sad panda, those corrections you made are quite horrible. The version by Ifixthings was a good one, and the missing citations could be corrected quite fast, already found several good and reliable sources. Wikintrepeter at least fixed the most outrageous claims. But still some are left like: "However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject" Still at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries support the claim and only one to my knowledge opposes it, that being American Association of Petroleum Geologists. And to be honest, them opposing it isn't really surprising. Im seriously baffled how one can deny the scientific consensus here, and seeing what i claim to be intellectual dishonesty makes me really sad, as this is something which will directly affect our lives and if not ours then at least our children's. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Both of the APA's voted that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Does that make it true? Are you quite sure their votes were not politically motivated?

:It doesn't matter how many '''groups''' take a stand on a matter of science. It only matters what the science actually is. But if you care about polls, what percent of climate scientists support or oppose the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] theory? If you know, do speak up. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, at minimum it matters what groups take a position since you claimed that "the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject". Even if that weren't the issue at hand, the number of people who are experts on an issue and have come to a conclusion a certain way about the issue does matter. While it doesn't alter who is correct in an absolute sense it does alter the estimated probability of an opinion being correct for someone who is trying to get some idea what to do and who does not have the time or resources to go through all the data that the experts do. That logic applies to any application of a scientific endeavor. For example there are still some geocentrists, the government when formulating policy does not need to worry about them. This is true for a politician whether or not that politician has bothered to understand what is wrong with geocentrism. Note that I'm not saying that global warming is equivalent to geocentrism but making the point that when evaluating claims on limited data or resources, the opinion of the vast majority matters. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::JoshuaZ allready gave so good answer that i have little to add to it. Im not sure if there has been done any exact polls on how many percentage of the experts on this area support or opposes anthropogenic global warming, but ill try to find one. Alltho i think that allready the number of supporting scientific societies and academies of science and the lack of opposing ones gives an quite good picture of the situation. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A trustworthy article should give scientific facts, don't you agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I really dont see where you are aiming at with this, as the link i just gave on the conversation bit below, shows that allready at year 2000 there where no studyes to be found that opposed the concencus, but offcourse there will allways be some "scientists" who disagree. if you are aiming for universal acceptance of an theory before it can be called an scientific fact, i must say we really dont have any. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

''The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years,'' YECs why don`t you delete this phrase and block the article? --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Joshua, the top experts say it's natural, and surveys of climatologists agree. What exactly is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: That's simply false. The UN report which you dislike was written by the top experts, who signed off on it. Again, the vast majority of the relevant scientific organizations have agreed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I've asked you twice for proof of this. I ask you here one last time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Sigh. Did you read what I wrote on your talk page or not? Almost every single author of the reports(and I listed a few as examples) is a respected scientist and there are about 40 authors to each report. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Found atleast [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 this] as an partial answer to the question here and above, alltho the report is already quite old and rapid progress has been made during few years, even at year 2000 this study didn't found '''any''' studies that disagreed with the consensus. That should already tell something. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: Hmm, interesting quote from that "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

A literature search by a [[Kyoto Protocol]] supporter is not the same as a study or a survey. It means nothing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Celsius ==

How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the [[Little Ice Age]] in 1850. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would prefer Kelvin. --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). [[User:Human|Human]] 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary "looks like". I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Political bias==

The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And ''Science'' might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's "not of interest to their readers". I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Um, what? Science isn't a "popular journal" but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No? ''This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.'' --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says "I agree with the IPCC about (anything)." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.
:And a recent examples:
Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 [[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666

== Independent scientists such as ... [[Fred Singer]] ==

Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, well by "independent" I just meant "speaking for himself", "not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line". Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Like [[James Hansen]] - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/][http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183]
:::Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::False citation: #11 doesn't say he was told not to talk about global warming, it just says that official press releases would be scrutinized. #12 doesn't mention his ability to talk at all; in it Hansen accuses Bush of stifling evidence (but without giving any examples of this supposed stifling). #13 says "Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing" but doesn't give the wording of this supposed "threat" or even a summary of it.

:::This is typical of liberals: they make claims which have no evidence. The entire case on global warming consists of claims that "the world's top scientists agree" but they give no polls to support this "consensus" claim. They say that "models predict" but when the models are contradicted by observations they say that "models aren't predictions". They say it's carbon dioxide, but CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when there was cooling, and anyway the climate record of the last 400 million years show an 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change - CO2 '''follows''' temperature, rather than driving it.

:::They are politicizing science while running a well orchestrated PR campaign of calling the kettle black. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so...... ==

Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/what_happened_predictions.html][http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/failpred.html] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc).

Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.asp?pr=2178] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.

Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.
:*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
:Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation? ==

I removed this uncited statement:

"However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position."

Can anyone give a citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the "no proof" claim should be taken out.

:But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

One of the citations: [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This "study" has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/FORUM.pdf] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

:Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

This paragraph does not distinguish between "global warming", i.e., a rise in temperature and "the Global Warming theory", i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.

Also undefined is "the effects of Global Warming". What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism Edit==
I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's ok, no problem. I was just surprised when I looked and right after my edit it said 'removed vandalism'. ;-) I didn't catch it myself until I saw your change. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

"The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years" - not according to this wiki's article on [[Ice Age]]. You can't have it both ways, did they occur, and is the earth at least 2,000,000 years old, or did they not and is it not? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

........--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationary scientists]] believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf ''What about the Ice Age?''], ''The Creation Answers Book'', Chapter 16). I guess I was hoping for a clearer answer than "........", which I don't understand. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cite Leading Group of Climate Change Skeptics? ==

As the IPCC is included in the introduction to this entry, it's appropriate that the leading group of climate change skeptics be cited, instead of individual scientists. Does anybody know what the appropriate body to cite is? I'm aware of "The Friends of Science", but I believe they're exclusively Canadian. [[User:Dbarefoot|Dbarefoot]] 08:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

I posit that if we're going to lay out the groups on both side of the global warming debate, they ought to be qualified equally, or not at all. I don't think these qualifiers are appropriate in introductions--they belong in the particular entries about the individuals or groups.

As I've queried above, I think it makes sense to describe the leading group of climate change skeptics or doubters, as they seem a natural counterpoint to the IPCC. Citing individual scientists seems too anecdotal for an encyclopedia, which ought to seek to be conclusive.

== " removing liberalness" ==

Is now given as a reason to alter an article? Ironically, the rather few "non-liberal" qualifiers I have ever typed were all reverted. Maybe because a liberal is not allowed to say these things? Or perhaps, just because since I can't understand them, I can't push the POV appropriately? [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Look at the statement i removed. i removed it because it was unsourced. perhaps i should have said "removing unsourced statement"[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Remember, liberal sources don't count! --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== How about these changes? ==

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.[Citation Needed]

I was going to use -> http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806 <- this as a citation before the page got locked :)

....and also I must take issue with this statement. "The scenario most postulated is dust storms.[4]"

Dust storms are not the "most" postulated -- The sun's solar cycles are just as much of a plausable theory....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

:I have no problem with that change, and I'm the one who entered the original information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neptune ==

I just read today that global warming has been found to be occurring on Neptune. It matches the same pattern for the time period found upon Mars and earth. It may be safe to assume that is not due to human intervention. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Where did you see this? I'd be very interested in reading about this in more detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950. I hope this is enough information to 'dig' it up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Found it. The paper is interesting. The correlation found was positive but not statistically significant between the brightness of Neptune and the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, from my reading it looks like one might expect a significant correlation even if most of the recent warming on earth is anthropogenic (note that this isn't my area of expertise so that could be painfully wrong). It should be interesting to see where this goes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I take no personal position on the issue, but I do believe any information that could be meaningful to form a complete picture should be included. That Mars and Neptune are both heating up over the same time period as the earth, and in the case of Mars even the temperature amount is similar, is certainly notable. It seems to me there is too much of an effort to dismiss information that would appear to be at odds with the concept that global warming is caused by humans, and that is unfortunate. (Note: I don't count global warming on Pluto due to Pluto's strange orbit. It has too many oddities, from my point of view, to be put in the same category.) Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the header title before posting here, I hope I didn't step on any toes. The Header ''was'' '''Global Warming on other Planets''' Which I changed to '''Warming ''of'' other Planets'''. I did this to prevent confusion, though indeed the other planets are ''also'' globes but usually, (in my experience) "global" means the sum and totality of Earth. Feel free to change it back if'n you want. - [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the talk message, and no offense taken. I've found that articles that discuss other planets usually still use the term global warming. For instance it has been popular to talk about global warming on Venus over the last decade or so, and the term global warming is used. The source about global warming on Mars also used the words global warming and Mars in the title. For these reasons I felt it was appropriate to keep the header title with global warming. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have [[experiment]]al evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is it an error? No. It is correct as it is. "Belief" means to give assent to an idea. It does not mean, despite the way some atheistic types think of it, as accepting an idea without evidence or good reason.
:Is it the best way to word it? Maybe not, but I'm not happy with your suggestion either. If I remember, I'll have more of a think about it.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::How about "Secular scientists think"? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::To my mind, "believe" is the better word. "Think" to me indicates some doubt, whereas "believe" can be a very strong conviction. But not everybody sees it that way, so I'll agree to changing it to "think", and in fact I've just done that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*This article has taken on drastic changes, it is a diluted, semi-neutral piece. It needs to be overhauled without the Liberal bias, and the removed material from warming skeptics added back. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
What is wrong with semi-neutral??? Is it only good if it carries a right wing arch-conservative bent?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Britnme, it is not true that getting peer-reviewed work published is a guarantee that it is based on experimental evidence. It only means that no obvious errors were found, and that the editor thinks it will interest his readers.

:Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==AGW==

Cut from article:

:... contrasts with the effects predicted for [[anthropogenic global warming]].

What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

Hi Dan, I'd like to point out that it is possible for Creation Scientists to believe in global warming as well, but they would not attach a 2 million year period of ice ages. ICR, for instance, takes a neutral view on global warming believing so far that the case has not been made satisfactorily, but they are open to ongoing evidence that may steer their opinion one way or the other if more concrete information is found. But even if they did feel global warming has been shown to be caused by humans, they still would not believe the earth is 2 million years old. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, the age issue would apply only to Young Earth Creationists. I will freely admit that more creation scientists are global warming skeptics than other scientists, but I don't think we need to make the distinction here, especially because, as you said, groups like ICR take a neutral stance on it, so it's a separate issue. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::The edit was to a paragraph about ice ages, not about global warming itself. That's why it is appropriate to qualify it somehow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Falsehood==

The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term "liberal falsehood" to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hockey Stick ==

This seems like an inappropriate graph to me. The gray are the real values, but they've been averaged to get a blue line to smooth out large fluctuations. Highlighting the ups and downs of the gray would give a very different picture. Also, it only deals with the northern hemisphere, which makes the overall numbers incomplete for the 'global' part of global warming. (I realize the ice samples were only taken from the north pole, but we've got another pole that needs to be checked for balance if those figures are to be as meaningful as they are made to appear.) Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

The linked citation reads: ''AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. ExxonMobil gave AEI approximately $925,000 between 1998 and 2003.''

Jacques, why do you keep cutting out the part about the AEI trying to buy scientists? It's got a citation. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Clay mathematics institute also offer money rewards, do you think it's trying to buy scientists?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I won't have any idea until you put a link in there for a cite, so I can read it for myself. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Let me guess--you own stock in Exxon? Such defensiveness ill-becomes someone with no money in this fight. --23:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And you own stock in solar power companies.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have a cite with a very long list of opponents to the global warming theory who have been sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. This is relevant to support the statement that such large oil industry companies are leading opponents of the theory. The line about offering $10,000 can be omitted if it's felt to be irrelevant.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Please do--then at least I won't get banned for an 'edit war'. And Jacques, PLEASE post a list of scientists being bankrolled by the massive Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, once you get it together. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::well, your thinking seems to be: tax money = good, donation = evil. Private donation automatically corrupt people and tax money does not, and any scientist who accept private donation is an Evil Communist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::man what
::::::oooookay. Let me make sure I understand your 'logic' here. Basically, you're saying that all these scientists, both the goverment-funded and the Exxon-funded, are equally corrupt, and should be treated with exactly the same amount of credibility, the same way that 'researchers' for the [[Tobacco institute]] were treated when they were the only doctors on Earth who failed to find a connection between smoking and lung diseases. Am I understanding your 'reasoning' here, so far? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::::So you are saying that you would have believed it when Soviet Union government funded Scientists claimed they have 'disproved' Darwinian evolution?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::"equally corrupt", or "equally likely to be corrupt"? Surely nobody here is claiming that either side is corrupt, merely suggesting that they might be account where the money is coming from. From that point of view, I would say yes, each side is ''equally likely'' to be corrupt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I am quite happy with the current version, which is a simple statement of fact - thank you for the edit, Jaques, which I think improves it. Regarding tobacco/lung diseases mentioned, I wonder if on the article about [[Richard Lindzen]] it should be mentioned how much money he received from the tobacco industry to dispute the connection between tobacco and lung diseases. Not that I would suggest for one moment that the gentleman does not believe what he advocates. I'm sure he is quite sincere--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Global warming

2007-05-22T03:26:19Z

Britinme: /* Politics of global warming */ Added oil industry opposition to global warming theory, with citations.

'''Global warming''' is the term ascribed to an increase in the [[global mean temperature]]. Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen just over one degree since 1850.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref>

Assessments by the [[United Nations]] promote the view that most of the warming since around 1850 is likely human-caused. In February, 2007, the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], a body of scientists<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704280477apr29,1,4275902.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</ref> established by the [[United Nations]], released their fourth assessment report on climate change. That report concluded that most of recent global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm</ref>. It says that increases in atmospheric concentrations of [[greenhouse gas]]es cause warming.

According to evolutionary scientists, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle.

==The Hockey Stick Reconstruction==
[[Image:Hockey stick chart ipcc.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Hockey Stick graph in 2001 IPCC report shows blue proxy values along the "shaft" with red instrumental values superimposed as the "blade"]]
One of the main arguments for anthropogenic global warming during the 3rd IPCC report was a temperature reconstruction done by climatologist Michael Mann. The resulting graph of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is shaped like a hockey stick, and it is used as evidence for the unusualness of the earth's temperature in the past few decades. However, Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick later discovered a serious flaw in the statistical methods used to construct the hockey stick graph. Because of this, the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC included several different temperature reconstruction methods instead of favoring just one hypothesis.

==Natural variability of the climate system==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Global Warming on other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

==Politics of global warming==

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the second half of the 20th Century, and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in [[carbon dioxide]] and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

58% of the 279 climate scientists working at US federal agences who responded to a survey by The Union of Concerned Scientists reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years and that they had experienced at least one of these constraints:
* “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications.
* Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”.
* Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings.
* “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”.
* “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”.
* “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

However, those who believe that either global warming is not a real phenomenon or that humanity's contribution to it has been overstated have made similar complaints. The UCS states in its report about the IPCC <ref> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html </ref>
<blockquote>Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues. Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a difficult position to defend. </blockquote>
<blockquote> Furthermore, according to IPCC principles, lead authors are “required to record views in the text which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view.”</blockquote>

There is widely held belief among the American public that global warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of global warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that global warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority (8%) believe that global warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

The industry most opposed <ref>http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf</ref> <ref>http://www.net.org/warming/skeptic.vtml </ref> to the global warming hypothesis is the fossil-fuel industry. Exxon-Mobil, for example, between 1998 and 2005 gave approximately $16 million to organizations that dispute the scientific consensus on global warming. <ref> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php</ref>. Included among these is the [[American Enterprise Institute]], <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9 </ref> which has received $1,630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm Global warming smear targets]
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]

==Critique of the Hokey Stick Reconstruction==
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by [[Michael Mann]]
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.

==References==

<references/>

[[category:earth science]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-22T03:17:35Z

Britinme: /* AEI and Exxon-Mobil */

{{Protected|TK}}

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Biased Line ==

"Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him"

Whoever said this you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. source that please!

Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(that he has problems trying to give away)

See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I edited in a section called 'Evidence' that was solidly backed up with references to reputable scientific sites. I see they've been reverted for 'Liberal bias'. What's 'Liberal bias' about facts about glacier recession and sea level rise? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:10, 23 March 2007

The article currently says "The theory enjoys wide political support, but many climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." This makes it sound as if there is an even balance between the number of climatologists and meteorologists who agree and disagree with the theory. This is inaccurate. The sentence should read "a minority of climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." I thought we were all about accuracy? The following sentence about 'consensus' is negated by the references to two out of that small minority of climatologists and meteorologists who disagree. By all means their names and views should be left in, to represent their disagreement, but their weight in the scale of scientific opinion should not be over-represented, and it should be balanced by reference to the names of proponents of the theory. I would be happy to make these changes, but the page is locked. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

=== Point 1 ===
"Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical." -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! "Very widely accepted"?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first link says "Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.". It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and "ex-liberal" discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the "ex-liberal" says: "MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well" (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning "overwhelming scientific evidence" but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is "very widely accepted" by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Point 4 ===
I think this is wrong. "Measures to combat global warming/climate change" are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a "fix it yourself" policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==
The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]
: Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Profit Motive ==
While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the citations needed in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Source #16 ==
How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== The whole article ==

The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?
: Global warming has become a new religion with Al Gore as the Pope of global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming "religion" similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled "religions" or "agendas," etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.

==Did you know...==
Does anyone here know that the polar ice caps have been shrinking considerably during the past three years? Now what on Mars could be doing that?

Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: Either it is a natural cycle on Mars, or solar activity increased and is generating more heat. If the later, it disproves pro-global warming scientists. Unless pro-global warming scientists want to claim that Martians are polluting CO2 on Mars to cause global warming, in which there is no evidence of Martians. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It doesn't 'disprove' pro-global warming scientists. It just factors in increased solar activity as another aspect of global warming and says nothing about anthropogenic aspects. Scientists generally believe that solar forcing, as it's called, is in the neighbourhood of one tenth of the total contribution to the heating of the atmosphere. Even this skeptic is citing solar forcing as no more than one third to two thirds contribution, and feels that anthropogenic contributions will be more important over the next century. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar . What are your figures for the extent of polar ice cap recession on Mars compared to the extent of polar ice cap recession on Earth? Take into account too the very different atmospheric conditions prevailing on Mars. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]]1:15, 24 March 2007

== Al Gore is no expert and no saint ==
These lines were removed, but they paint a picture of Al Gore:
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm
Al Gore is no scientist, and he didn't do anything to halt global warming while in office. I think he does a lot of credibility damage to global warming because of these things. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==
Dang, this article is really biased. People need to realise that Earth is changing, and it is being caused by humans. It is sad to see how people are so disrespectful to the work of God. I think that destroying everything great that the Lord has made is a terrible sin and this website should recognise the harm that they are doing to this great gift that God has given us.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 19:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*I believe there is plenty of evidence, and scientists, who do not adopt the panic-mode of Gore and others. Many believe it is a natural occurrence, perhaps hastened by fossil fuel consumption, but nevertheless something that has occurred hundreds of times, in the life of the planet. It is your job, everyone, as contributors and posters here, to edit the page to strike some balance, rather than dismiss opposing thought as morons, and ignore what others say. ''If this cannot be done, I will lock the page''. I hate to do that, because supposedly adults, thinking people, should be able to arrive at a meaningful compromise. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Lots of things are "perfectly natural".... like dying of [[cholera]] at age 28. We do our best to stop that from happening, too. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The way we stopped cholera is by avoiding wishful thinking and carrying out careful experiments. There's a fascinating detective story about how the first researcher proved that it was contaminated water (from a single pump?) that was causing a cholera epidemic in London. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::On the other hand, if we render the planet TOTALLY unlivable, Jesus will HAVE to return and save us all!

::No need to lock the page. I know a lot about what both sides are saying and can perhaps help to craft a balanced article. (I am the original author of [[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks Ed!! Thats the spirit! I posted some links below, so some can take a look, possibly add their own, of actual scientists who just hate all the alarmism. Feel free to IM me anytime. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:*'''Sorry, some felt the need for a fight tonight, I guess, and kept reverting. Just let me know, I will unlock it once the children have stopped their tantrums.''' --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Facts & Links To Check Out... ==

Whose Ox Is Gored? The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804]

The Tempest
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html]

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html]

An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away: [http://newsbusters.org/node/9262]

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

<blockquote>
"...But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

'''Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.'''

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

'''While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”'''

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

'''It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.'''

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

'''“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”'''

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

'''“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”''' </blockquote>
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

== Al Gore Header ==

*Is it really necessary? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

There are hundreds of people, some with star power and knowledge exceeding Al Gore, on both sides of this issue. Why is Al Gore given somemuch time and space in this catagory?

"So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming""

quoted from above. By whose notion is he the leading expert on Global Warming? Where is reference to Hansen, Broecker, Schmidt,Thompson et al, you know people who actually study this stuff for a living? Why focus on Gore? ''---The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Third Day''

:The Democratic Party is largely Liberal, and global warming is a big issue for liberals. Al Gore is one of the most popular Democrats, and he has a book out called "Earth in the Balance". Who else *but* Gore? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
*Were you speaking to me? If so, I am wondering why the info under the Gore heading couldn't be better placed in the body of the article rather than his own heading..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

::Conservatives have [[Richard Lindzen]], who is an actual scientist who makes sense and doesn't fudge the numbers. Liberals only have <s>[[Jim Hansen]],</s> who will never live down his "scary scenarios" remark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::*Oops, I meant [[Stephen Schneider]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I just added a line to the Gore header, to balance it some. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "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." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

:Then go in the history and find the source, and put it back in. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
*Exactly! And be sure to let either Hoji or me know if another revert war starts. ;-) ---~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocking ==

This article is far from complete. When will it be unlocked so we can add information about scientific data showing natural causes for warming, explanation of the solar flux theory, carbon dioxide tracking temps, cosmoclimatology, paleoclimatology, etc. As it stands it makes it look like all we care about is the political side of things. This can't be true, can it? This unsigned comment was made by [[User:Third Day]]

*You are right. I suppose for now, if you would like to post the additions here, they can be pasted over. Or you can contact me, and I could open it up for you to edit. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously nothing was important enough to contact me about, or post here about. Makes me wonder why, upon locking a page, people want it open, for what? If they don't come back with a suggestion or contribution, what is the point? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I've been on the road, hence I did not respond. Some of us have lives outside of this site. I will put together a summary of additions I feel worthy and post here in the talk section. I do wonder if the whole Wiki concept is undermined if the additions need to be vetted by a select few. It may take years for the articles to settle into a reflection of community knowledge, but thats the point, right? Nobody goes to a wiki, any kind of wiki, for the absolute truth on anything. No wiki is a valid source in a peer reviewed paper or even a college paper. It is a way to get a sense of the state of knowledge in a community of users. Wikipedia suffers from the fact that the community of users is so broad as to produce everchanging articles. There are Wikis that restrict the user base to members of certain communities - like a company or agency or users of a particular software. But if Conservapedia wants to surviv and not be mocked it needs to open itself up to slings and arrows. If indeed, we conservatives really believe that our point of view will dominate, then we need not be afraid to open up to liberal edits - cause enough of us will respond in force, and in time will overwhelm. If we just lock down the articles will never evolve (pardon the word) into a compleat, trustworthy wikipedia. OK, I'm done ranting. Off my soap box now :). - Third Day

==Are there any Wikipedia editors here?==
An article on Scientific data withholding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_withholding] has been nominated for deletion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_data_withholding#.5B.5BScientific_data_withholding.5D.5D] If you are a Wikipedia editor, please read the article and vote. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 00:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong question to ask here. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to canvas for votes. You're doing the right thing in the wrong way. Next step is RFC and/or an email to Jimbo. You don't win this kind of battle by stooping to their level. Stay here and work on the climate articles, instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I just learned about "canvassing." I know Connelly is doing it because people are showing up to vote who have not read the article or the Talk page. Teach me the right way to handle this, Ed. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is off-topic, but since I brought it up I better finish it.

:This is the type of battle that it's okay to lose. When people see that the process was followed on one side, but ignored or misused on the other side, then sympathy is genereated for the correct side. Think Rosa Parks. Think [[sit-ins at lunch counters]]. And also think about contributing more here. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Using "Global Climate Change" is not kosher ===

This is a way for carbon alarmists to hedge their bets, and answer critics if there's a series of cold winters. In the 1970s they were ringing the Ice Age bell, now they've settled on warming so they can dial back the economies of the West (while ignoring China). [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The [[global warming controversy]] has replaced the [[Vietnam War]] and [[nuclear power]] as the big-ticket leftist issue. And now that Communism has faded from Europe and is morphing in [[China]], what are all the socialists going to get into but the [[Environment]]? It's the perfect materialistic cause, and there's plenty of money to go around. The US government alone spends over a billion dollars a year on "research" and the United Nations issues assessments every few years (see [[IPCC]]). We all know how objective and fair minded the UN [[General Assembly]] has been on non-environmental issues such as [[human rights]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::note that nuclear power is actully the best canidate for clean, alternative energy; yet, most enviornmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace are vehemently opposed to it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This article is a completely unsourced diatribe. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== pictures ==
We need some pictures--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Admin: Can we use wikipedia.org pictures? --[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:yes if it's public domain.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 04:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

I don't think I would be too wrong in saying that conservative young-earth creationism and skepticism over human-induced climate change usually go together, not all the time of course, but on this site they seem to. Whats strange however, is that geological evidence is cited uncritically in this article in order to discredit human-induced climate change:

:"Global warming is a natural periodic increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and it has always been followed by period of global cooling ... According to geologists, the Earth has experience numerous ice ages."

Even though this is incompatible with young earth creationism. To quote from Conservapedia's own [[Ice Age]] entry:
:"Mainstream geologists and Young Earth creationists are at odds over whether any ice ages have actually occurred."

A clear demonstration, in my opinion, of the type of muddled thinking that conservative fundamentalist ideology generates. (These inconsistent portions of the articles were even added by the same author: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=124708 Global warming edit history] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ice_Age&diff=prev&oldid=113042 Ice Age edit history].)
[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's more a typical demonstration of jumping to conclunions on the part of liberals. I'm the author of the current [[global warming]] article, and I'm not a YEC. :P --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I would also point out that I am the main author of the [[Theory of evolution]] article which is definitely critical the macroevolutionary position, and I am undecided regarding the global warming issue in regards to its possible causes and its possible effects. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::You still add criticism of mainstream geology when it suits you, and uncritically marshal it in your support when it doesn't. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 16:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Orgone has a very good point. A YEC should have no issue with global warming since the earth has not been around long enough to go through these climate changes that geologists say we have gone through.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

'''See also:''' [[Nineteen_Eighty-Four | Doublethink]]

==Liberal bias==

I would like to ask anyone who disagrees with top U.S. climate experts - Harvard and MIT scientists and U.S. state climatologists - to go slowly and carefully when editing this article.

My dad majored in physics, and I got top grades in math and physics. There is a lot of liberal misinformation about [[Anthropogenic global warming]] tied to the UN-promoted [[Kyoto Protocol]], the global warming treaty which seeks a "[[carbon tax]]" and other forms of [[emissions trading]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well ''my'' dad is bigger than ''your'' dad so ''there''! (Childish of me i know, but i couldn't resist it!) :-p [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Java, I agree with some of your edits, but I think that the first paragraph should stick to undisputed facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:I aded references. [[User:Java|Java]] 17:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all references tell the truth. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Is this a joke? I referenced from Nature, PNAS, Science and GISS. Why should the current references tell the truth? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::::for 1 thing anything talking about "the last 420,000 years" is wrong. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am a little vexed. Do you want to put me on? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

*Java, YEC's, since they don't believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years or so, won't accept those figures. RSchlafly, I have once again protected this article, so stop this kind of constant arguing. Please keep an eye peeled for our more Liberal Sysop's opening it up. Thanks! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::As I pointed out above in '''Ideological Inconsistencies''', if this site is to view everything through the distorting mirror that is YEC, why do the references to [[Ice Age]]s stay in the introductory section? [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Um, please freeze on a version with facts ==

Not to rock the boat or anything, but the current un-editable version of the Global Warming page has essentially no scientific merit. Could someone please revert to a version with some actual discussion of global warming. I'm happy to write it. It involves sunshine, blackbody radiation, the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide, and an explanation of climate feedbacks. -Ifixthings

: I agree. Describe global warming accurately first. Get into the politics later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*Cool, Roger. Open it, edit it, do whatever. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, I unlocked it. Please keep science and politics separate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I love the nice accurate new version. I give it five minutes before it's reverted.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
**Yeah, it didn't last long, which is stupid because it was much more correct.[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 17:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh Ed Poor... You make me an sad panda, those corrections you made are quite horrible. The version by Ifixthings was a good one, and the missing citations could be corrected quite fast, already found several good and reliable sources. Wikintrepeter at least fixed the most outrageous claims. But still some are left like: "However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject" Still at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries support the claim and only one to my knowledge opposes it, that being American Association of Petroleum Geologists. And to be honest, them opposing it isn't really surprising. Im seriously baffled how one can deny the scientific consensus here, and seeing what i claim to be intellectual dishonesty makes me really sad, as this is something which will directly affect our lives and if not ours then at least our children's. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Both of the APA's voted that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Does that make it true? Are you quite sure their votes were not politically motivated?

:It doesn't matter how many '''groups''' take a stand on a matter of science. It only matters what the science actually is. But if you care about polls, what percent of climate scientists support or oppose the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] theory? If you know, do speak up. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, at minimum it matters what groups take a position since you claimed that "the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject". Even if that weren't the issue at hand, the number of people who are experts on an issue and have come to a conclusion a certain way about the issue does matter. While it doesn't alter who is correct in an absolute sense it does alter the estimated probability of an opinion being correct for someone who is trying to get some idea what to do and who does not have the time or resources to go through all the data that the experts do. That logic applies to any application of a scientific endeavor. For example there are still some geocentrists, the government when formulating policy does not need to worry about them. This is true for a politician whether or not that politician has bothered to understand what is wrong with geocentrism. Note that I'm not saying that global warming is equivalent to geocentrism but making the point that when evaluating claims on limited data or resources, the opinion of the vast majority matters. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::JoshuaZ allready gave so good answer that i have little to add to it. Im not sure if there has been done any exact polls on how many percentage of the experts on this area support or opposes anthropogenic global warming, but ill try to find one. Alltho i think that allready the number of supporting scientific societies and academies of science and the lack of opposing ones gives an quite good picture of the situation. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A trustworthy article should give scientific facts, don't you agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I really dont see where you are aiming at with this, as the link i just gave on the conversation bit below, shows that allready at year 2000 there where no studyes to be found that opposed the concencus, but offcourse there will allways be some "scientists" who disagree. if you are aiming for universal acceptance of an theory before it can be called an scientific fact, i must say we really dont have any. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

''The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years,'' YECs why don`t you delete this phrase and block the article? --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Joshua, the top experts say it's natural, and surveys of climatologists agree. What exactly is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: That's simply false. The UN report which you dislike was written by the top experts, who signed off on it. Again, the vast majority of the relevant scientific organizations have agreed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I've asked you twice for proof of this. I ask you here one last time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Sigh. Did you read what I wrote on your talk page or not? Almost every single author of the reports(and I listed a few as examples) is a respected scientist and there are about 40 authors to each report. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Found atleast [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 this] as an partial answer to the question here and above, alltho the report is already quite old and rapid progress has been made during few years, even at year 2000 this study didn't found '''any''' studies that disagreed with the consensus. That should already tell something. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: Hmm, interesting quote from that "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

A literature search by a [[Kyoto Protocol]] supporter is not the same as a study or a survey. It means nothing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Celsius ==

How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the [[Little Ice Age]] in 1850. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would prefer Kelvin. --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). [[User:Human|Human]] 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary "looks like". I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Political bias==

The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And ''Science'' might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's "not of interest to their readers". I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Um, what? Science isn't a "popular journal" but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No? ''This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.'' --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says "I agree with the IPCC about (anything)." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.
:And a recent examples:
Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 [[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666

== Independent scientists such as ... [[Fred Singer]] ==

Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, well by "independent" I just meant "speaking for himself", "not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line". Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Like [[James Hansen]] - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/][http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183]
:::Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::False citation: #11 doesn't say he was told not to talk about global warming, it just says that official press releases would be scrutinized. #12 doesn't mention his ability to talk at all; in it Hansen accuses Bush of stifling evidence (but without giving any examples of this supposed stifling). #13 says "Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing" but doesn't give the wording of this supposed "threat" or even a summary of it.

:::This is typical of liberals: they make claims which have no evidence. The entire case on global warming consists of claims that "the world's top scientists agree" but they give no polls to support this "consensus" claim. They say that "models predict" but when the models are contradicted by observations they say that "models aren't predictions". They say it's carbon dioxide, but CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when there was cooling, and anyway the climate record of the last 400 million years show an 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change - CO2 '''follows''' temperature, rather than driving it.

:::They are politicizing science while running a well orchestrated PR campaign of calling the kettle black. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so...... ==

Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/what_happened_predictions.html][http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/failpred.html] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc).

Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.asp?pr=2178] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.

Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.
:*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
:Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation? ==

I removed this uncited statement:

"However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position."

Can anyone give a citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the "no proof" claim should be taken out.

:But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

One of the citations: [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This "study" has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/FORUM.pdf] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

:Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

This paragraph does not distinguish between "global warming", i.e., a rise in temperature and "the Global Warming theory", i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.

Also undefined is "the effects of Global Warming". What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism Edit==
I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's ok, no problem. I was just surprised when I looked and right after my edit it said 'removed vandalism'. ;-) I didn't catch it myself until I saw your change. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

"The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years" - not according to this wiki's article on [[Ice Age]]. You can't have it both ways, did they occur, and is the earth at least 2,000,000 years old, or did they not and is it not? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

........--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationary scientists]] believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf ''What about the Ice Age?''], ''The Creation Answers Book'', Chapter 16). I guess I was hoping for a clearer answer than "........", which I don't understand. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cite Leading Group of Climate Change Skeptics? ==

As the IPCC is included in the introduction to this entry, it's appropriate that the leading group of climate change skeptics be cited, instead of individual scientists. Does anybody know what the appropriate body to cite is? I'm aware of "The Friends of Science", but I believe they're exclusively Canadian. [[User:Dbarefoot|Dbarefoot]] 08:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

I posit that if we're going to lay out the groups on both side of the global warming debate, they ought to be qualified equally, or not at all. I don't think these qualifiers are appropriate in introductions--they belong in the particular entries about the individuals or groups.

As I've queried above, I think it makes sense to describe the leading group of climate change skeptics or doubters, as they seem a natural counterpoint to the IPCC. Citing individual scientists seems too anecdotal for an encyclopedia, which ought to seek to be conclusive.

== " removing liberalness" ==

Is now given as a reason to alter an article? Ironically, the rather few "non-liberal" qualifiers I have ever typed were all reverted. Maybe because a liberal is not allowed to say these things? Or perhaps, just because since I can't understand them, I can't push the POV appropriately? [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Look at the statement i removed. i removed it because it was unsourced. perhaps i should have said "removing unsourced statement"[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Remember, liberal sources don't count! --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== How about these changes? ==

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.[Citation Needed]

I was going to use -> http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806 <- this as a citation before the page got locked :)

....and also I must take issue with this statement. "The scenario most postulated is dust storms.[4]"

Dust storms are not the "most" postulated -- The sun's solar cycles are just as much of a plausable theory....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

:I have no problem with that change, and I'm the one who entered the original information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neptune ==

I just read today that global warming has been found to be occurring on Neptune. It matches the same pattern for the time period found upon Mars and earth. It may be safe to assume that is not due to human intervention. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Where did you see this? I'd be very interested in reading about this in more detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950. I hope this is enough information to 'dig' it up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Found it. The paper is interesting. The correlation found was positive but not statistically significant between the brightness of Neptune and the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, from my reading it looks like one might expect a significant correlation even if most of the recent warming on earth is anthropogenic (note that this isn't my area of expertise so that could be painfully wrong). It should be interesting to see where this goes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I take no personal position on the issue, but I do believe any information that could be meaningful to form a complete picture should be included. That Mars and Neptune are both heating up over the same time period as the earth, and in the case of Mars even the temperature amount is similar, is certainly notable. It seems to me there is too much of an effort to dismiss information that would appear to be at odds with the concept that global warming is caused by humans, and that is unfortunate. (Note: I don't count global warming on Pluto due to Pluto's strange orbit. It has too many oddities, from my point of view, to be put in the same category.) Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the header title before posting here, I hope I didn't step on any toes. The Header ''was'' '''Global Warming on other Planets''' Which I changed to '''Warming ''of'' other Planets'''. I did this to prevent confusion, though indeed the other planets are ''also'' globes but usually, (in my experience) "global" means the sum and totality of Earth. Feel free to change it back if'n you want. - [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the talk message, and no offense taken. I've found that articles that discuss other planets usually still use the term global warming. For instance it has been popular to talk about global warming on Venus over the last decade or so, and the term global warming is used. The source about global warming on Mars also used the words global warming and Mars in the title. For these reasons I felt it was appropriate to keep the header title with global warming. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have [[experiment]]al evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is it an error? No. It is correct as it is. "Belief" means to give assent to an idea. It does not mean, despite the way some atheistic types think of it, as accepting an idea without evidence or good reason.
:Is it the best way to word it? Maybe not, but I'm not happy with your suggestion either. If I remember, I'll have more of a think about it.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::How about "Secular scientists think"? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::To my mind, "believe" is the better word. "Think" to me indicates some doubt, whereas "believe" can be a very strong conviction. But not everybody sees it that way, so I'll agree to changing it to "think", and in fact I've just done that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*This article has taken on drastic changes, it is a diluted, semi-neutral piece. It needs to be overhauled without the Liberal bias, and the removed material from warming skeptics added back. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
What is wrong with semi-neutral??? Is it only good if it carries a right wing arch-conservative bent?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Britnme, it is not true that getting peer-reviewed work published is a guarantee that it is based on experimental evidence. It only means that no obvious errors were found, and that the editor thinks it will interest his readers.

:Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==AGW==

Cut from article:

:... contrasts with the effects predicted for [[anthropogenic global warming]].

What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

Hi Dan, I'd like to point out that it is possible for Creation Scientists to believe in global warming as well, but they would not attach a 2 million year period of ice ages. ICR, for instance, takes a neutral view on global warming believing so far that the case has not been made satisfactorily, but they are open to ongoing evidence that may steer their opinion one way or the other if more concrete information is found. But even if they did feel global warming has been shown to be caused by humans, they still would not believe the earth is 2 million years old. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, the age issue would apply only to Young Earth Creationists. I will freely admit that more creation scientists are global warming skeptics than other scientists, but I don't think we need to make the distinction here, especially because, as you said, groups like ICR take a neutral stance on it, so it's a separate issue. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::The edit was to a paragraph about ice ages, not about global warming itself. That's why it is appropriate to qualify it somehow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Falsehood==

The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term "liberal falsehood" to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hockey Stick ==

This seems like an inappropriate graph to me. The gray are the real values, but they've been averaged to get a blue line to smooth out large fluctuations. Highlighting the ups and downs of the gray would give a very different picture. Also, it only deals with the northern hemisphere, which makes the overall numbers incomplete for the 'global' part of global warming. (I realize the ice samples were only taken from the north pole, but we've got another pole that needs to be checked for balance if those figures are to be as meaningful as they are made to appear.) Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

The linked citation reads: ''AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. ExxonMobil gave AEI approximately $925,000 between 1998 and 2003.''

Jacques, why do you keep cutting out the part about the AEI trying to buy scientists? It's got a citation. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Clay mathematics institute also offer money rewards, do you think it's trying to buy scientists?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I won't have any idea until you put a link in there for a cite, so I can read it for myself. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Let me guess--you own stock in Exxon? Such defensiveness ill-becomes someone with no money in this fight. --23:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And you own stock in solar power companies.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have a cite with a very long list of opponents to the global warming theory who have been sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. This is relevant to support the statement that such large oil industry companies are leading opponents of the theory. The line about offering $10,000 can be omitted if it's felt to be irrelevant.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-22T02:53:20Z

Britinme:

Global warming

2007-05-22T02:51:08Z

Britinme: Undo revision 172175 by Special:Contributions/Jaques (User talk:Jaques)Added citation to show link between Exxon Mobil and AEI

'''Global warming''' is the term ascribed to an increase in the [[global mean temperature]]. Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen just over one degree since 1850.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F]in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref>

Assessments by the [[United Nations]] promote the view that most of the warming since around 1850 is likely human-caused. In February, 2007, the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], a body of scientists<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704280477apr29,1,4275902.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</ref> established by the [[United Nations]], released their fourth assessment report on climate change. That report concluded that most of recent global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm</ref>. It says that increases in atmospheric concentrations of [[greenhouse gas]]es cause warming.

There have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle.

==The Hockey Stick Reconstruction==
[[Image:Hockey stick chart ipcc.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Hockey Stick graph in 2001 IPCC report shows blue proxy values along the "shaft" with red instrumental values superimposed as the "blade"]]
One of the main arguments for anthropogenic global warming during the 3rd IPCC report was a temperature reconstruction done by climatologist Michael Mann. The resulting graph of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is shaped like a hockey stick, and it is used as evidence for the unusualness of the earth's temperature in the past few decades. However, Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick later discovered a serious flaw in the statistical methods used to construct the hockey stick graph. Because of this, the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC included several different temperature reconstruction methods instead of favoring just one hypothesis.

==Natural variability of the climate system==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Global Warming on other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

==Politics of global warming==

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the second half of the 20th Century, and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in [[carbon dioxide]] and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

58% of the 279 climate scientists working at US federal agences who responded to a survey by The Union of Concerned Scientists reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years and that they had experienced at least one of these constraints:
* “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications.
* Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”.
* Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings.
* “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”.
* “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”.
* “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

However, those who believe that either global warming is not a real phenomenon or that humanity's contribution to it has been overstated have made similar complaints. The UCS states in its report about the IPCC <ref> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html </ref>
<blockquote>Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues. Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a difficult position to defend. </blockquote>
<blockquote> Furthermore, according to IPCC principles, lead authors are “required to record views in the text which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view.”</blockquote>

There is widely held belief among the American public that global warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of global warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that global warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority (8%) believe that global warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

== The Economics of Global Warming ==

Global Warming is apparently broadly believed in by insurance companies, who have a great deal to lose if they guess incorrectly about future natural disasters. <ref>[http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/08/22/PM200608222.html Marketplace: Global warming insurance]</ref><ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1013/p01s01-usec.html Christian Science Monitor: New combatant against global warming: insurance industry]</ref>

The industry most opposed to the Global Warming Hypothesis is, unsurprisingly, the fossil-fuel industry, such as the Exxon-Mobil sponsored <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9</ref>[[American Enterprise Institute]] offering $10,000 to scientists and journalists willing to dispute global-warming studies.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11 Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study]</ref>

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm Global warming smear targets]
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]

==Critique of the Hokey Stick Reconstruction==
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by [[Michael Mann]]
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.

==References==

<references/>

[[category:earth science]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Global warming

2007-05-21T20:07:44Z

Britinme: Fine-tuned wording

'''Global warming''' is the term ascribed to an increase in the [[global mean temperature]]. Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen just over one degree since 1850.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F]in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref>

A minority of scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the patterns of global warming are naturally caused (see [[climate cycles]]).

Assessments by the [[United Nations]] promote the world view that the warming since around 1850 is mostly human-caused.
In February, 2007, the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], a body of scientists<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704280477apr29,1,4275902.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</ref> established by the [[United Nations]], released their fourth assessment report on climate change. That report concluded that recent global climate change was "very likely" caused by human activity, <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm</ref>.

Politicians who support the [[Kyoto Protocol]] have made the claim that there is a cause and effect relationship between increases in atmospheric concentrations of [[greenhouse gas]]es and air temperature.

==The Hockey Stick Reconstruction==
[[Image:Hockey stick chart ipcc.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The 2001 IPCC report shows blue proxy values along the "shaft" with red instrumental values superimposed as the "blade"]]
One of the main arguments for anthropogenic global warming during the 3rd IPCC report was a temperature reconstruction done by climatologist Michael Mann. The resulting graph of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is shaped like a hockey stick, and it is used as evidence for the unusualness of the earth's temperature in the past few decades. However, Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick later discovered a serious flaw in the statistical methods used to construct the hockey stick graph. Because of this, the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC included several different temperature reconstruction methods instead of favoring just one hypothesis.

==Natural variability of the climate system==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Global Warming on other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

==Politics of global warming==

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the second half of the 20th Century, and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in [[carbon dioxide]] and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

58% of the 279 climate scientists working at US federal agences who responded to a survey by The Union of Concerned Scientists reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years<ref>Union of Concerned Scientists and Government Accountability Project, February 2007. Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf</ref> and that they had experienced at least one of these constraints:
* “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications.
* Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”.
* Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings.
* “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”.
* “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”.
* “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

However, those who believe that either global warming is not a real phenomenon or that humanity's contribution to it has been overstated have made similar complaints. The UCS states in its report about the IPCC <ref> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html </ref>
<blockquote>Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues. Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a difficult position to defend. </blockquote>
<blockquote> Furthermore, according to IPCC principles, lead authors are “required to record views in the text which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view.”</blockquote>

There is widely held belief among the American public that global warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of global warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that global warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority (8%) believe that global warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm Global warming smear targets]
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]

==Critique of the Hokey Stick Reconstruction==
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by [[Michael Mann]]
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.

==References==

<references/>

[[category:earth science]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Global warming

2007-05-21T14:28:04Z

Britinme: /* Politics of global warming */ Corrected faulty citation

'''Global warming''' is the term ascribed to an increase in the [[global mean temperature]]. Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen just over one degree since 1850.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F]in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref>

Scientists such as [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent) say that the patterns of global warming are naturally caused (see [[climate cycles]]).

Assessments by the [[United Nations]] promote the world view that the warming since around 1850 is mostly human-caused.
In February, 2007, the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], a body of scientists<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704280477apr29,1,4275902.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</ref> established by the [[United Nations]], released their fourth assessment report on climate change. That report concluded that recent global climate change was "very likely" caused by human activity, <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm</ref>.

Politicians who support the [[Kyoto Protocol]] have made the claim that there is a cause and effect relationship between increases in atmospheric concentrations of [[greenhouse gas]]es and air temperature.

==The Hockey Stick Reconstruction==
[[Image:Hockey stick chart ipcc.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The 2001 IPCC report shows blue proxy values along the "shaft" with red instrumental values superimposed as the "blade"]]
One of the main arguments for anthropogenic global warming during the 3rd IPCC report was a temperature reconstruction done by climatologist Michael Mann. The resulting graph of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is shaped like a hockey stick, and it is used as evidence for the unusualness of the earth's temperature in the past few decades. However, Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick later discovered a serious flaw in the statistical methods used to construct the hockey stick graph. Because of this, the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC included several different temperature reconstruction methods instead of favoring just one hypothesis.

==Natural variability of the climate system==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Global Warming on other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

==Politics of global warming==

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the second half of the 20th Century, and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in [[carbon dioxide]] and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

58% of the 279 climate scientists working at US federal agences who responded to a survey by The Union of Concerned Scientists reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years<ref>Union of Concerned Scientists and Government Accountability Project, February 2007. Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf</ref> and that they had experienced at least one of these constraints:
* “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications.
* Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”.
* Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings.
* “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”.
* “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”.
* “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

However, those who believe that either global warming is not a real phenomenon or that humanity's contribution to it has been overstated have made similar complaints. The UCS states in its report about the IPCC <ref> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html </ref>
<blockquote>Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues. Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a difficult position to defend. </blockquote>
<blockquote> Furthermore, according to IPCC principles, lead authors are “required to record views in the text which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view.”</blockquote>

There is wide agreement among the American public that global warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of global warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that global warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority (8%) believe that global warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm Global warming smear targets]
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]

==Critique of the Hokey Stick Reconstruction==
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by [[Michael Mann]]
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.

==References==

<references/>

[[category:earth science]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Global warming

2007-05-21T14:14:52Z

Britinme: /* Politics of global warming */ Balanced argument provided citation

'''Global warming''' is the term ascribed to an increase in the [[global mean temperature]]. Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen just over one degree since 1850.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F]in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref>

Scientists such as [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent) say that the patterns of global warming are naturally caused (see [[climate cycles]]).

Assessments by the [[United Nations]] promote the world view that the warming since around 1850 is mostly human-caused.
In February, 2007, the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], a body of scientists<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704280477apr29,1,4275902.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</ref> established by the [[United Nations]], released their fourth assessment report on climate change. That report concluded that recent global climate change was "very likely" caused by human activity, <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm</ref>.

Politicians who support the [[Kyoto Protocol]] have made the claim that there is a cause and effect relationship between increases in atmospheric concentrations of [[greenhouse gas]]es and air temperature.

==The Hockey Stick Reconstruction==
[[Image:Hockey stick chart ipcc.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The 2001 IPCC report shows blue proxy values along the "shaft" with red instrumental values superimposed as the "blade"]]
One of the main arguments for anthropogenic global warming during the 3rd IPCC report was a temperature reconstruction done by climatologist Michael Mann. The resulting graph of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is shaped like a hockey stick, and it is used as evidence for the unusualness of the earth's temperature in the past few decades. However, Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick later discovered a serious flaw in the statistical methods used to construct the hockey stick graph. Because of this, the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC included several different temperature reconstruction methods instead of favoring just one hypothesis.

==Natural variability of the climate system==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Global Warming on other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

==Politics of global warming==

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the second half of the 20th Century, and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in [[carbon dioxide]] and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

58% of the 279 climate scientists working at US federal agences who responded to a survey by The Union of Concerned Scientists reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years<ref>Union of Concerned Scientists and Government Accountability Project, February 2007. Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Atm </ref> and that they had experienced at least one of these constraints:
* “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications.
* Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”.
* Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings.
* “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”.
* “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”.
* “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

However, those who believe that either global warming is not a real phenomenon or that humanity's contribution to it has been overstated have made similar complaints. The UCS states in its report about the IPCC <ref> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html </ref>
<blockquote>Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues. Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a difficult position to defend. </blockquote>
<blockquote> Furthermore, according to IPCC principles, lead authors are “required to record views in the text which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view.”</blockquote>

There is wide agreement among the American public that global warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of global warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that global warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority (8%) believe that global warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm Global warming smear targets]
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]

==Critique of the Hokey Stick Reconstruction==
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by [[Michael Mann]]
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.

==References==

<references/>

[[category:earth science]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Global warming

2007-05-21T14:01:13Z

Britinme: /* Politics of global warming */

'''Global warming''' is the term ascribed to an increase in the [[global mean temperature]]. Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen just over one degree since 1850.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F]in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref>

Scientists such as [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent) say that the patterns of global warming are naturally caused (see [[climate cycles]]).

Assessments by the [[United Nations]] promote the world view that the warming since around 1850 is mostly human-caused.
In February, 2007, the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], a body of scientists<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704280477apr29,1,4275902.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</ref> established by the [[United Nations]], released their fourth assessment report on climate change. That report concluded that recent global climate change was "very likely" caused by human activity, <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm</ref>.

Politicians who support the [[Kyoto Protocol]] have made the claim that there is a cause and effect relationship between increases in atmospheric concentrations of [[greenhouse gas]]es and air temperature.

==The Hockey Stick Reconstruction==
[[Image:Hockey stick chart ipcc.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Hockey stick graph as shown in the 2001 IPCC report.]]
One of the main arguments for anthropogenic global warming during the 3rd IPCC report was a temperature reconstruction done by climatologist Michael Mann. The resulting graph of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is shaped like a hockey stick, and it is used as evidence for the unusualness of the earth's temperature in the past few decades. However, Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick later discovered a serious flaw in the statistical methods used to construct the hockey stick graph. Because of this, the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC included several different temperature reconstruction methods instead of favoring just one hypothesis.

==Natural variability of the climate system==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Global Warming on other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

==Politics of global warming==

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the second half of the 20th Century, and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in [[carbon dioxide]] and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

58% of the 279 climate scientists working at US federal agences who responded to a survey by The Union of Concerned Scientists reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years<ref>Union of Concerned Scientists and Government Accountability Project, February 2007. Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Atm </ref> and that they had experienced at least one of these constraints:
* “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications.
* Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”.
* Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings.
* “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”.
* “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”.
* “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

There is wide agreement among the American public that global warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of global warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that global warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority (8%) believe that global warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm Global warming smear targets]
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]

==Critique of the Hokey Stick Reconstruction==
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by [[Michael Mann]]
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.

==References==

<references/>

[[category:earth science]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Rebecca West

2007-05-20T22:39:12Z

Britinme: Clearing up links and typos

'''Rebecca West''', was the pen name of Cicely Fairfield. She was born in Kerry, Ireland in 1892 and educated in Scotland, at George Watson's Ladies' College in Edinburgh. In 1910 she attended the Academy of Dramatic Art and worked briefly as an actress. She then turned to journalism and took the pen name Rebecca West after the heroine of a play by [[Henrik Ibsen]] called ''Rosmersholm''.

West was always a strong supporter of women's rights, first writing for ''The Freewoman'' and later became a reporter for ''The Clarion''. She wrote articles for a wide variety of newspapers and magazines including ''The Daily News'', ''The Star'', ''The New Statesman'' and ''New Republic.'' She was an enthusiastic supporter of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS).

In 1912 she became the lover of the British novelist [[H.G.Wells]] and later that year gave birth to his son, Anthony, who took her surname.

During the politically turbulent 1930s, West remained interested in politics from a left-wing position. Like so many writers of the period, she supported the Popular Front government during the [[Spanish Civil War]]. She joined with other prominent writers and speakers in setting up the Committee to Aid Homeless Spanish Women and Children.

However, after World War II, her political positions became more conservative and she wrote for more right-wing publications including the ''[[Daily Telegraph]]''. She continued to publish many books and newspaper and magazine articles until her death in 1985. <ref>
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WwestR.htm </ref>

==The Rebecca West Society==

Bernard Schweizer, a scholar of Rebecca West's work, her grand niece Helen Macleod Atkinson, and her biographer Carl Rollyson jointly founded ''The International Rebecca West Society'' in 2003, to encourage interest in Rebecca West's work among academics, politicians, philosophers, journalists and feminists. They organize conferences and publish academic papers on different aspects of her life and work. <ref>http://www.rebeccawestsociety.org/bibliography.htm</ref>

==Novels and other full-length works==

* Return of the Soldier (1918)
* The Judge (1922)
* The Strange Necessity (1928)
* Harriet Hume (1929).
* [[D.H.Lawrence]] (1930)
* The Meaning of Treason (1949)
* The Fountain Overflows (1957)
* The Court and the Castle (1958)
* The Birds Fall Down (1966)
* [[Marshall McLuhan|McLuhan]] and the Future of Literature (1969)
* 1900 (1982)

==Quotations==

"The main difference between men and women is that men are lunatics and women are idiots."
<ref> http://www.rebeccawestsociety.org/ </ref>

"I myself have never been able to find out what [[feminism]] is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." <ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rebecca_west.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Feminism

2007-05-20T22:20:35Z

Britinme: Restored quotations with a more acceptable citation.

Feminism is a philosophy which argues for equal treatment and responsibilities for men and women, and boys and girls.

==History==

Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900's and the [[Women's Liberation]] (or "Second Wave Feminist") movement of the 1960's and 1970's.

An [[Equal Rights Amendment]] was proposed in the US in 1972, but was not ratified. Opponents of the amendment cited the following consequences: making girls subject to the military draft; the integration of single-sex schools; the possible recognition of homosexual marriage; and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, like factory or mining work.

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of [[Post-Feminism]] which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized in everyday life, often by women themselves, and in the American legal structure. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently enshrined in American law, including the legal right to [[abortion]]. This stance is opposed by many conservatives, leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Femi-nazis" to refer to feminist supporters of abortion rights. As of April 2007, women in the US have a legal right to abortion, with limitations in some cases. According to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor abortion being legal in all cases, and 39% favor abortion being legal in most cases. 31% feel that abortion should be illegal in most cases and 12% believe it should be illegal in all cases. 2% are unsure on the issue. <ref>http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm</ref>

Second Wave Feminism has made a resurgence in 1990s and early years of 21st century as the movement is spreading internationally in [[Asia]] and the [[Middle East]]. During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]] these latter-day feminists overlooked President Clinton's apparently womanizing behavior in order to focus upon his attempts to procure federal funding for several of their causes.

==Quotations==

The English novelist and critic [[Rebecca West]] said<ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rebecca_west.html</ref> :

<blockquote> "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." </blockquote>

The televangelist [[Pat Robertson]] said<ref> Fundraising letter, 1992 quoted on http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/patr.htm </ref>:

<blockquote>"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."</blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Gender equality]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.

Rebecca West

2007-05-20T22:12:06Z

Britinme: /* Quotations */

'''Rebecca West''', was the pen name of Cicely Fairfield. She was born in Kerry, Ireland in 1892 and educated in Scotland, at George Watson's Ladies' College in Edinburgh. In 1910 she attended the Academy of Dramatic Art and worked briefly as an actress. She then turned to journalism and took the pen name Rebecca West after the heroine of a play by [[Henrik Ibsen]] called ''Rosmersholm''.

West was always a strong supporter of women's rights, first writing for ''The Freewoman'' and later a reporter for ''The Clarion''. She wrote articles for a wide variety of newspapers and magazines including ''The Daily News'', ''The Star'', ''The New Statesman'' and ''New Republic.'' She was an enthusiastic supporter of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS).

In 1912 she became the lover of the British novelist [[H.G.Wells]] and later that year gave birth to his son, Anthony, who took her surname.

During the politically turbulent 1930s, West remained interested in politics from a left-wing position. Like so many writers of the period, she supported the Popular Front government during the [[Spanish Civil War]]. She joined with other prominent writers and speakers in setting up the Committee to Aid Homeless Spanish Women and Children.

However, after World War II, her political positions became more conservative and she wrote for more right-wing publications including the [[''Daily Telegraph'']]. She continued to published many books and newspaper and magazine articles until her death in 1985. <ref>
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WwestR.htm </ref>

==The Rebecca West Society==

Bernard Schweizer, a scholar of Rebecca West's work, her grand niece Helen Macleod Atkinson, and her biographer Carl Rollyson jointly founded ''The International Rebecca West Society'' in 2003, to encourage interest in Rebecca West's work among academics, politicians, philosophers, journalists and feminists. They organize conferences and publish academic papers on different aspects of her life and work. <ref>http://www.rebeccawestsociety.org/bibliography.htm</ref>

==Novels and other full-length works==

* Return of the Soldier (1918)
* The Judge (1922)
* The Strange Necessity (1928)
* Harriet Hume (1929).
* [[D.H.Lawrence]] (1930)
* The Meaning of Treason (1949)
* The Fountain Overflows (1957)
* The Court and the Castle (1958)
* The Birds Fall Down (1966)
* [[Marshall McLuhan|McLuhan]] and the Future of Literature (1969)
* 1900 (1982)

==Quotations==

"The main difference between men and women is that men are lunatics and women are idiots."
<ref> http://www.rebeccawestsociety.org/ </ref>

"I myself have never been able to find out what [[feminism]] is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." <ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rebecca_west.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Feminism

2007-05-20T22:10:43Z

Britinme: /* Why the deleted quotations? */

Removed opinion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A big problem with feminism is its desire to erase sex distinctions. Masculinity and femininity are no longer seen as God-given traits, or even ideals. [[Women in the military]], the so-called [[equal pay for equal work]] law; the forced muzzling of that Harvard president who dared suggest that women and men might not be equally suited to academic careers in math and science.

The idea that there's nothing sacred about the male-female relationship obviously provides support for [[gay rights]] agitation and same-sex "marriage". If there's nothing special about a man, then what does a woman need one for? She can have a "wife" too (as Garry Trudeau once put it). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the addition of the Rush Limbaugh "femi-nazi" comment is particularly relevant, largely because it's based on the wholly erroneous assumption that all feminists are pro-abortion. To include anything based on that assumption mischaracterizes the late 20th c/early 21st c "post feminist" era, where women who self-identify as feminists are far more likely to fall within a broad spectrum of ideals than one cookie cutter. [[User:Fsm1975|Fsm1975]] 23:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I just found this. This gives a leading source for a definition.
:Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, a group of a half-million members who support feminist candidates for elective office. Asked whether she saw herself as a feminist, Clinton said by the standard definition, yes. "If you look in the dictionary, the word feminist means someone who believes in equal rights for women in society, in the economy, the political process -- generally believes in the equality of women," she said. "And I certainly believe in the equality of women." [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::I’m curious why a person who would not accept a philosopher of science as a credible source for an entry on science would accept the definition of a politician/lawyer as definitive in terms of a philosophical/social/academic movement. Let alone why you would think she would be a “leading source for a definition”. Not that I object to the content of her definition, but the strongest claim I think you can support with it is “some politicians endorsed by [[NOW]] believe feminism means…” An interesting, but not especaly useful or informative claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Defining feminism==

Cut from intro:

:However there is no broad consensus among [[feminists]] (followers of feminism) about how gender equality ought to be understood. In recent years this has led many feminists to argue that, because there are so many different and mutually exclusive philosophies and philosophers that are called feminist, it is more appropriate to speak of feminisms (plural) than feminism (singular) <ref>Feminisms [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/]</ref>. For this reason it is difficult, if not impossible, to state any belief universally held by all feminists.

This sounds like a refusal to be categorized, defined or otherwise pinned down. But it's the job of an encyclopedia to define and categorize. How can we solve this problem? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:The way I would suggest handling it is to take seriously the distinctions feminists make among themselves. (For example there is a clear split between the pro- and anti- pornography feminists (I’m still working on a RD of the [[pornography]] article as per our previous discussion btw) ). If we are going to really flesh out this article we ought to have a number of feminisms represented here—just as we don’t lump all creationists together but observe the very real distinction between Young and Old Earth Creationists.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Can you explain why abortion polling data is so relevant to this article? What is the point? It is an article about Feminism, not abortion politics.
: You put in a statement that the majority of Americans the current law on abortion rights, but in fact the most recent poll at the cited source says that only 16% support that right. So I corrected that. Now you want various other poll results. What is the point? People can follow the link to the polls if they wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The statement about feminist support for abortion rights was in the original version of the article I saw. I linked to the poll to provide a citation on an issue that the original article said was of great importance to many feminists, and made it clear that these rights were opposed by many conservatives and some feminists. My original simple statement about 'majority' support for the right to a legal abortion in all or some cases was made convoluted by another editor and I attempted to clarify it. It has now been totally distorted by you. In addition to the 16% support you keep citing, you omit to say that an additional 39% support abortion rights 'in most cases'. Shall we say that only 12% of people - presumably conservatives - oppose abortion? This would be equally valid by your measure of validity. People can certainly follow the link, but it is dishonest to misrepresent its content in the way you are doing.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:16, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: What is dishonest? It is an article about feminism, not about conservative abortion views. Maybe an article about abortion can explain the polls in detail, I don't know. The feminist organizations that support abortion rights want abortion to be legal in all cases. The 16% figure is the most relevant one. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In that case, since there is no evidence that only feminists support abortion in all cases (we know that some are opposed) the relevant figure is the 62% who support the retention of rights under Roe v Wade, which I think we can agree was agreed by most feminists to be a landmark case on this issue. I suggest we cite that instead, which gives a clearer figure both of general feminist support for abortion rights and the degree to which that issue is supported by the population as a whole. The figure was quite unequivocal on the poll, and is probably less confusing than the other poll. I propose substituting that one. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Could you give me an example of a feminist organization that opposes abortion rights in some cases? I think that the Roe v Wade poll is more confusing because it reflect not just opinions on abortion, but also opinions about legal theories. I wonder how many people even know what the legal consequence of overturning Roe v Wade would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sure - [ http://www.feministsforlife.org/] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [http://www.gargaro.com/fem.html] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html]. Personally, I don't think the Roe v Wade poll is confusing, because most people associate that case with abortion rights and would be unlikely to consider abstract legal theories in that context. Roe v Wade is cited as an event of significance in a timeline of women's rights on [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [http://www.feminist.org/courts/roe.asp] and [http://www.now.org/press/01-04/01-22.html]. I feel that it is important to demonstrate the extent to which majority feminist thinking is supported by opinion among the country as a whole over this issue, hence my wish to cite either the full figures of the first poll or the limited figures over Roe v Wade of the second. The second set are probably clearer and easier.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 20:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: There are certainly lots of feminists who are very happy with abortion law. But if you want to argue that a majority of the people agree with a majority of the feminists, then the Roe v Wade poll doesn't do it. A lot of people are for or against Roe v Wade for a lot of reasons. If you want opinions on abortion, the best polls are the ones that ask abortion questions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The language on the poll numbers, as it stands, is misleading. Currently the language is “As of April 2007, women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases, and according to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor the retention of this right.” This is simply not the case, women have a right to abortions in most cases, but it is not unlimited. Parental notification laws, parental consent laws, laws banning third trimester abortions except when necessary to protect the health or life of the mother – all of these laws are (currently) constitutional (laws banning second trimester abortions except when necessary for the life or safety of the mother are also probably, but less clearly, allowable). That means that 16% of people favor an expansion of the right to an abortion, not keeping it the same. 39% seem to favor “keeping it the same” as there is currently a right to abortion in most, but not all cases.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I agree that the numbers as currently stated are misleading. In that case, given that RSchlafly opposes using the Roe v Wade poll I think the fairest and most representative thing to do is to cite the full figures of the first poll, which is the most recent one in any case, and let people make their own minds up about the extent to which majority feminist thinking on this issue has influenced thinking in the population in general. I will edit accordingly.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Interestingly enough, even Roe v. Wade didn’t go as far as to say that a woman had a right to an abortion in all cases. It said that a woman had a right to an abortion in the first trimester, in the second trimester a woman has a right to an abortion unless the state can show a really good reason why she should be allowed to have one, and a state could outlaw almost all third trimester abortions. (The Casey decision which is the leading case at the moment, relaxed constraints on what the state could ban). So under current law more abortions can be outlawed than could be under Roe v. Wade and even under Roe it was not the case that “women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases”.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Thank you, that's very helpful and I hope my editing of the paragraph has reflected that. Please clarify if it seems inaccurate. It sounds as if law in the US is, in practice, quite similar to law in the UK, where abortions are illegal after 24 weeks unless there are life-threatening reasons, although in practice only a minute percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Your restatement in the article looks right to me. Just to be clear though, I am only talking about what women have a constitutionally protected right to (at the moment, I suspect that this will change in the near future). I’m not sure what the law is in any given state—the Supreme Court simply says “this is the most you can outlaw” in many states more abortions are allowed than the bare minimum. And I have no idea what the actual numbers look like here (actually I suspect that those numbers are not attainable here, given how tightly guarded medical records are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 21:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: No, it is just not the case that abortion is limited by trimesters under USA law. Not under Roe, and not under Casey. USA law is not like UK law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why the deleted quotations?==

RobS - it is not very polite to delete another editor's work that is relevant to the article without discussing it first. I reverted your original edit so that it could be discussed. I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to do that here.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:answers.com is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well that's no problem. It's an extremely famous quotation and I have plenty of other sources for it. The other quotation from Pat Robertson is not from answers.com so I presume that is OK. If that's your only problem with it, I will restore it with a different source. It would have been mannerly of you to have asked me if I had another source for it rather than just deleting it though. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:10, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Feminism

2007-05-20T21:36:01Z

Britinme:

Rebecca West

2007-05-20T21:32:21Z

Britinme: New page: '''Rebecca West''', was the pen name of Cicely Fairfield. She was born in Kerry, Ireland in 1892 and educated in Scotland, at George Watson's Ladies' College in Edinburgh. In 1910 she atte...

'''Rebecca West''', was the pen name of Cicely Fairfield. She was born in Kerry, Ireland in 1892 and educated in Scotland, at George Watson's Ladies' College in Edinburgh. In 1910 she attended the Academy of Dramatic Art and worked briefly as an actress. She then turned to journalism and took the pen name Rebecca West after the heroine of a play by [[Henrik Ibsen]] called ''Rosmersholm''.

West was always a strong supporter of women's rights, first writing for ''The Freewoman'' and later a reporter for ''The Clarion''. She wrote articles for a wide variety of newspapers and magazines including ''The Daily News'', ''The Star'', ''The New Statesman'' and ''New Republic.'' She was an enthusiastic supporter of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS).

In 1912 she became the lover of the British novelist [[H.G.Wells]] and later that year gave birth to his son, Anthony, who took her surname.

During the politically turbulent 1930s, West remained interested in politics from a left-wing position. Like so many writers of the period, she supported the Popular Front government during the [[Spanish Civil War]]. She joined with other prominent writers and speakers in setting up the Committee to Aid Homeless Spanish Women and Children.

However, after World War II, her political positions became more conservative and she wrote for more right-wing publications including the [[''Daily Telegraph'']]. She continued to published many books and newspaper and magazine articles until her death in 1985. <ref>
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WwestR.htm </ref>

==The Rebecca West Society==

Bernard Schweizer, a scholar of Rebecca West's work, her grand niece Helen Macleod Atkinson, and her biographer Carl Rollyson jointly founded ''The International Rebecca West Society'' in 2003, to encourage interest in Rebecca West's work among academics, politicians, philosophers, journalists and feminists. They organize conferences and publish academic papers on different aspects of her life and work. <ref>http://www.rebeccawestsociety.org/bibliography.htm</ref>

==Novels and other full-length works==

* Return of the Soldier (1918)
* The Judge (1922)
* The Strange Necessity (1928)
* Harriet Hume (1929).
* [[D.H.Lawrence]] (1930)
* The Meaning of Treason (1949)
* The Fountain Overflows (1957)
* The Court and the Castle (1958)
* The Birds Fall Down (1966)
* [[Marshall McLuhan|McLuhan]] and the Future of Literature (1969)
* 1900 (1982)

==Quotations==

"The main difference between men and women is that men are lunatics and women are idiots."
<ref> http://www.rebeccawestsociety.org/ </ref>

"I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." <ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rebecca_west.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Feminism

2007-05-20T21:07:20Z

Britinme: Undo revision 169784 by Special:Contributions/RobS (User talk:RobS) I don't know what 'no wiki mirrors' means, but could we discuss before deleting relevant material please?

Feminism is a philosophy which argues for equal treatment and responsibilities for men and women, and boys and girls.

==History==

Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900's and the [[Women's Liberation]] (or "Second Wave Feminist") movement of the 1960's and 1970's.

An [[Equal Rights Amendment]] was proposed in the US in 1972, but was not ratified. Opponents of the amendment cited the following consequences: making girls subject to the military draft; the integration of single-sex schools; the possible recognition of homosexual marriage; and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, like factory or mining work.

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of [[Post-Feminism]] which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized in everyday life, often by women themselves, and in the American legal structure. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently enshrined in American law, including the legal right to [[abortion]]. This stance is opposed by many conservatives, leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Femi-nazis" to refer to feminist supporters of abortion rights. As of April 2007, women in the US have a legal right to abortion, with limitations in some cases. According to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor abortion being legal in all cases, and 39% favor abortion being legal in most cases. 31% feel that abortion should be illegal in most cases and 12% believe it should be illegal in all cases. 2% are unsure on the issue. <ref>http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm</ref>

Second Wave Feminism has made a resurgence in 1990s and early years of 21st century as the movement is spreading internationally in [[Asia]] and the [[Middle East]]. During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]] these latter-day feminists overlooked President Clinton's apparently womanizing behavior in order to focus upon his attempts to procure federal funding for several of their causes.

==Quotations==

The English novelist and critic [[Rebecca West]] said:
<blockquote>
"I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute."<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/rebecca-west</ref>
</blockquote>

The televangelist [[Pat Robertson]] said:
<blockquote>"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."</blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Equal pay for equal work]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
{{Political ideologies}}

Talk:Jerry Falwell

2007-05-20T03:12:20Z

Britinme: /* Sept 11 comments */

{{protected|Geo.plrd}}

This page needs improvement to do justice to Rev. Falwell.

I rolled back the liberal gossip about Falwell and Rev. Moon. It's nothing more than a smear effort of the sort we don't allow under our [[rules]]. Falwell is not an adherent of Rev. Moon's church and Falwell is entitled to do business just like everyone else. The smear was unsupported by a credible resource.

Be fair to Christians and everyone else here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Also I'm not sure that rotten.com is a "reliable" source.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 22:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: My addition to this article is based on fact, not opinion. Critics do indeed attack Falwell's connection the Unification Church. This is not an attack or "smear" on Christians in general but a verifiable fact about the controversy surrounding a public figure. Opposing viewpoints supported by citations are welcome, but this is tantamount to censorhip. Rotten has an admitted liberal bias but all their info in this instance is credible and independently verifiable.

--[[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 22:22, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to edit this article over the next couple days. Falwell has been a tremendous educator, and his efforts deserve more than this. Stay tuned! --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 21:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure why my changes were reverted. Jerry Falwell has ties to Republican causes and the Moral Majority is a part of the Religious Right, not the Religious right. For instance the Christian Coalition is part of the Religious Right as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

(Belated question) How is it a "smear" to link Falwell and Moon? Has [[Rev. Moon]] done something wrong? (Apart from not accepting [[Young Earth creationism]], I mean ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Just passed away==
CCN just reported his death today.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Someone commented out his support for apartheid. Not sure why as it's factual and documented. I removed the comment block around it...apologies for the double edit.

: Jerry Falwell was frequently misquoted and misinterpreted by anti-Christian enemies. Don't expect any unsourced, biased and misleading information, motivated by anti-Christian animus, to be allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My Civil Procedure professor represented Larry Flynt in his successful defense of Falwell's suit before the Supreme Court. He also played Falwell's attorney (switching sides) in the film version of the trial. Fun stuff. -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 16:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==South Africa and apartheid==

Time magazine, Monday, Sep. 02, 1985:
*Falwell opposes apartheid, but professed faith that Botha will dismantle the system eventually, if only everyone is patient. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959695,00.html]

I stand corrected. I'll update changes to reflect this. Stompum
*Page is locked. Mods please remove the line about Falwell's support for Apartheid.

== Sept 11 comments ==

Why were these deleted? They're important, widely publicized, etc. I can't imagine anything other than censorship - that hallmark of Wikipedia - that would compel you to leave his unpopular side out of the article.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:When will you revert to re-include his Sept 11th comments?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I believe that in the Nancy Pelosi article there is a section about her marching in the same group as a NAMBLA member. Seems very biased and one-sided to leave that part in there, but then take out any mention of Falwell's hateful statements on 9-11 because it might make him look bad. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 17:52, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think you are going to see anything but a hagiography here. Mr. Falwell represents everything this site's owners hold dear. I'll stick to paraphrasing Randi Rhodes: "If I had anything sympathetic to say about that man at all, I'd say it." But these people love him, and it's their site. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hagiography! Now there's a ten dollar word! Despite his apology, Rev. Falwell's quotes will forever be part of the 9/11 memory. But since the sysops love him, there's no way they'll include anything slightly negative here. RIP Falwell. Hope you don't meet any pagans, homosexuals, feminists, or ACLU members in heaven. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Well let's make sure the comments are recorded on the talk page if not in the article. Does anybody dispute that the Rev. Falwell said this? ''The abortionists have got to bear some burden for [the attacks of Sept. 11] because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'''--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:21, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
:If he apologized & retracted the statement, why should we repeat it? And without making that point, it's more out of context quote mining. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:13, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
::I didn't know he'd apologized and retracted, but thank you for telling everybody so that we have that clear. However, he said it and presumably he said it because he thought it. Moreover, it's totally in line with other things he said, so I have no reason to think he said something he didn't mean. The fact that he was shamed into retracting it because it was so howlingly outrageous doesn't mean it doesn't represent what he thought.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes that is a good point. Let me throw out a rhetorical question: (a) Do you think gay adoption would be a good propaganda recruiting tool to exploit by Islamic terrorists, and (b) Do advocates of gay adoption have any moral responsibility to the rest of us ''if'' in fact gay adoption is a good recruiting tool to get suicide bombers to kill Americans? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:14, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
::::a) No - it is totally simplistic to imagine that terrorists attack us because they think we're morally decadent b) That is a 'have you stopped beating your wife yet' question. Now I'll ask you a couple of questions. a) Do you think Jerry Falwell's statements that "I think Muhammad was a terrorist" and that he "was a -- a violent man, a man of war" - statements against a man regarded by Muslims with as much reverence as Christians regard Jesus Christ, and that he later stood by - were more likely or less likely to increase terrorist attacks against Americans both here and in Iraq? [http://www.theturkishtimes.com/archive/02/10_15/f_falwell.html] And b) do you think Conservapedia's continuing to host (for at least the last two months) a copy of one of the cartoons that caused rioting in Denmark on our article about the [[Muhammad cartoons controversy]] is more likely or less likely to help bring about peace? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:12, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

==Quotes==
Here's a website (I know it's biased, but the quotes are accurate): http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/devil.html

You can form your own opinion about him, I don't care what you think, but I just thought it might be helpful to create an opinion on him (to conservatives: look for the two anti-semitic quotes.)
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
:Oh really? Let's take this one,
*''Alcoholism and Negroes
"There are almost as many alcoholics as there
are negroes."
Rev. Jerry Falwell

You alleged "source" gives us a classic ''argumentum ad ignoratiam''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Your reply is barely coherent. Explanation?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:58, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Your source uses the conjunctive word, "and"; Rev. Falwell nowhere conjoins alcholism and Negroes; in fact, Rev. Falwell does a compararison of the statisical population of both. This is typical of the trite garbage that passes as reasoned discourse from some sectors of liberalism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:04, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
So that's one quote that might be out of context. The rest, though?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 18:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey, don't shoot the messenger (I did mention the source is biased), you're entitled to your own opinion.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

OK, I randomly picked a liberal quote of [[Jerry Falwell]]:

"I listen to feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men - that's their
problem."

Colorful and statistically accurate. I agree it's not politically correct. Go to Hillary Clinton for political correctness. [[Jerry Falwell]] spoke the truth in a colorful way, and we thank him for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:How come you don't like women?
: Hey I'll have to tell my husband he's a Casper Milquetoast who needs to ask me for permission to go to the bathroom. He'll die laughing. Do people really take these ridiculous stereotypes seriously?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

How about these?

"The idea of separation of Church and State
was invented by the Devil to keep Christians
from running their own country."

Rev. Jerry Falwell

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure
as a human being."

Rev. Jerry Falwell

"He is purple - the gay-pride colour; and his antenna
is shaped like a triangle - the gay-pride symbol."

Rev. Jerry Falwell
(Falwell on the teletubbies, come on, how much more paranoid can you get?)
::Did he really say this? Check a less biased source.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Falwell's magazine to his supporters (and not even Falwell himself) first brought up the topic, but it was a repeat of what was already being winked at in media circles. Both Time Magazine and TV guide had already brought out the same information (albeit not in a negative form), a fact easily forgotten when the opportunity to blame Jerry Falwell arose. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:06, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I got 10 identical matches on the first page of google...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
::Yes, but he himself did not say this. It was his newspaper. He had no involvement.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I wasn't there, and wikipedia is rather vague about it, but the BBC link is pretty clear, what do you think of his claims about Jews?
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

He said: "God doesn't listen to Jews." --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:20, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

And for all those people with little Israeli flags on their user pages:

"I know a few of you here today don't like Jews.
And I know why. He can make more money accidentally
than you can on purpose.

Rev. Jerry Falwell

The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief.
They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of
their Messiah and Savior.

Jerry Falwell, Listen, America!

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Confronting his critics ==

While I disagree with the Rev on many issues, he was never afraid to discuss his disagreements with others. He would have gladly sat down with Clinton, Dawkins, anyone, and debated any issue. I do wish more people would follow that example, rather than censoring or pushing away those with whom they disagree.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== History will judge him harshly ==

Ultimately, Falwell was one of the group who used religion as a cause for separating rather than uniting. His notoriously stupid remarks about gays just after 9/11, a somewhat thinly disguised anti-semetism, and some absurd remarks on pop culture (you know, the one about the Tele-tubby being a gay role model), rather than appealing to our better selves, goaded our darker sides.

My reading of the new testatment indicates that Jesus preached tolerance and loving thy neighbor. And indeed, when I was a kid, I recall religous folks were always pretty nice people, even their kids couldn't play hockey on Sunday.

Tell you what, read the book of Matthew, look at some old Billy Graham sermons, and forget this mean-spirted blowhard.--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 20:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:So I guess an apology means nothing, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't think that an apology undoes the harm he did to a country that was trying to heal, when he tore the wounds open & rubbed salt in them again.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 21:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::will someone explain exactly what harm he did?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
Bohdan, here [http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/]

Speaker, Frankly, I'm certain Falwell spoke from the heart, and quickly realized America needed to be united in the coming war, and not fighting among ourselves. That's why he immediately issued the apology. Truth is, I'm also fairly certain Falwell gave voice to the sentiments a lot of other Americans were experiencing at the same time. And based upon the daily drumbeat of hatred we see from gays and neopagans directed at Bush, (and comments we've seen here), Falwell was right. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Daily drumbeat of hatred from homosexuals and neopagans? Can you give an... actual example? I'm thrilled to see it.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 21:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Polls say 60%+ nolonger wish to take the war to the terrorists. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I hate to say it, but that's 60% of the American people, right? So it's not like it's exclusively gays and pagans who don't particularly like Bush. I'm sure there are people in the 60% who are not gay or pagan who hate Bush, while not the majority. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 21:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Go to [[:Category:Anti-war movement]] and see who's been anti-war since Falwell made this statement. Incidentally, too bad the NAMBLA article got deleted, they've been leading the anti-war movement since March 2003. But for reference, you can visit NAMBLA advocate [[Harry Hay]]. Seems he's no stranger to anti-war activity and working with America's enemies since the Korean War. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::::That's ''Guilt By Association'', and it is most certainly a fallacy. NAMBLA most certainly has not been ''leading'' the anti-war movement. Have you seen any news reports about NAMBLA organizing anti-war protests? I sure haven't. Not on Fox or otherwise.
::::Then again, you might be implying that the reason why NAMBLA is anti-war is because Falwell accused them of being responsible. As he didn't even mention NAMBLA in the quote, I find this hard to believe. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 07:14, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Past tense ==

Someone who actually sees "edit" rather than "view source" on the article page should go around and change all the verbs to past tense so that instead of saying he does something they say he did something. The man is dead. He's not doing any of those things anymore. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 23:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Name ==

Add: Jerry Laymon Falwell Sr.

Thank you

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== External links ==

Add also a link:

External Links: [http://www.falwell.com/ J. F. Website]

And a pic: Image:Falwell.jpg|right [[Image:Falwell.jpg|right]]

( source:http://www.falwell.com/index.cfm?PID=13737 )

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:03, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==

Can this picture be added to the article. I uploaded it before I realized the page was locked.

[[Image:Jfalwell.jpg|thumb|250px]]

Talk:Jerry Falwell

2007-05-19T02:28:56Z

Britinme: /* Sept 11 comments */

{{protected|Geo.plrd}}

This page needs improvement to do justice to Rev. Falwell.

I rolled back the liberal gossip about Falwell and Rev. Moon. It's nothing more than a smear effort of the sort we don't allow under our [[rules]]. Falwell is not an adherent of Rev. Moon's church and Falwell is entitled to do business just like everyone else. The smear was unsupported by a credible resource.

Be fair to Christians and everyone else here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Also I'm not sure that rotten.com is a "reliable" source.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 22:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: My addition to this article is based on fact, not opinion. Critics do indeed attack Falwell's connection the Unification Church. This is not an attack or "smear" on Christians in general but a verifiable fact about the controversy surrounding a public figure. Opposing viewpoints supported by citations are welcome, but this is tantamount to censorhip. Rotten has an admitted liberal bias but all their info in this instance is credible and independently verifiable.

--[[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 22:22, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to edit this article over the next couple days. Falwell has been a tremendous educator, and his efforts deserve more than this. Stay tuned! --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 21:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure why my changes were reverted. Jerry Falwell has ties to Republican causes and the Moral Majority is a part of the Religious Right, not the Religious right. For instance the Christian Coalition is part of the Religious Right as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

(Belated question) How is it a "smear" to link Falwell and Moon? Has [[Rev. Moon]] done something wrong? (Apart from not accepting [[Young Earth creationism]], I mean ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Just passed away==
CCN just reported his death today.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Someone commented out his support for apartheid. Not sure why as it's factual and documented. I removed the comment block around it...apologies for the double edit.

: Jerry Falwell was frequently misquoted and misinterpreted by anti-Christian enemies. Don't expect any unsourced, biased and misleading information, motivated by anti-Christian animus, to be allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My Civil Procedure professor represented Larry Flynt in his successful defense of Falwell's suit before the Supreme Court. He also played Falwell's attorney (switching sides) in the film version of the trial. Fun stuff. -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 16:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==South Africa and apartheid==

Time magazine, Monday, Sep. 02, 1985:
*Falwell opposes apartheid, but professed faith that Botha will dismantle the system eventually, if only everyone is patient. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959695,00.html]

I stand corrected. I'll update changes to reflect this. Stompum
*Page is locked. Mods please remove the line about Falwell's support for Apartheid.

== Sept 11 comments ==

Why were these deleted? They're important, widely publicized, etc. I can't imagine anything other than censorship - that hallmark of Wikipedia - that would compel you to leave his unpopular side out of the article.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:When will you revert to re-include his Sept 11th comments?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I believe that in the Nancy Pelosi article there is a section about her marching in the same group as a NAMBLA member. Seems very biased and one-sided to leave that part in there, but then take out any mention of Falwell's hateful statements on 9-11 because it might make him look bad. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 17:52, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think you are going to see anything but a hagiography here. Mr. Falwell represents everything this site's owners hold dear. I'll stick to paraphrasing Randi Rhodes: "If I had anything sympathetic to say about that man at all, I'd say it." But these people love him, and it's their site. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hagiography! Now there's a ten dollar word! Despite his apology, Rev. Falwell's quotes will forever be part of the 9/11 memory. But since the sysops love him, there's no way they'll include anything slightly negative here. RIP Falwell. Hope you don't meet any pagans, homosexuals, feminists, or ACLU members in heaven. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Well let's make sure the comments are recorded on the talk page if not in the article. Does anybody dispute that the Rev. Falwell said this? ''The abortionists have got to bear some burden for [the attacks of Sept. 11] because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'''--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:21, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
:If he apologized & retracted the statement, why should we repeat it? And without making that point, it's more out of context quote mining. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:13, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
::I didn't know he'd apologized and retracted, but thank you for telling everybody so that we have that clear. However, he said it and presumably he said it because he thought it. Moreover, it's totally in line with other things he said, so I have no reason to think he said something he didn't mean. The fact that he was shamed into retracting it because it was so howlingly outrageous doesn't mean it doesn't represent what he thought.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

==Quotes==
Here's a website (I know it's biased, but the quotes are accurate): http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/devil.html

You can form your own opinion about him, I don't care what you think, but I just thought it might be helpful to create an opinion on him (to conservatives: look for the two anti-semitic quotes.)
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
:Oh really? Let's take this one,
*''Alcoholism and Negroes
"There are almost as many alcoholics as there
are negroes."
Rev. Jerry Falwell

You alleged "source" gives us a classic ''argumentum ad ignoratiam''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Your reply is barely coherent. Explanation?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:58, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Your source uses the conjunctive word, "and"; Rev. Falwell nowhere conjoins alcholism and Negroes; in fact, Rev. Falwell does a compararison of the statisical population of both. This is typical of the trite garbage that passes as reasoned discourse from some sectors of liberalism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:04, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
So that's one quote that might be out of context. The rest, though?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 18:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey, don't shoot the messenger (I did mention the source is biased), you're entitled to your own opinion.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

OK, I randomly picked a liberal quote of [[Jerry Falwell]]:

"I listen to feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men - that's their
problem."

Colorful and statistically accurate. I agree it's not politically correct. Go to Hillary Clinton for political correctness. [[Jerry Falwell]] spoke the truth in a colorful way, and we thank him for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:How come you don't like women?
: Hey I'll have to tell my husband he's a Casper Milquetoast who needs to ask me for permission to go to the bathroom. He'll die laughing. Do people really take these ridiculous stereotypes seriously?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

How about these?

"The idea of separation of Church and State
was invented by the Devil to keep Christians
from running their own country."

Rev. Jerry Falwell

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure
as a human being."

Rev. Jerry Falwell

"He is purple - the gay-pride colour; and his antenna
is shaped like a triangle - the gay-pride symbol."

Rev. Jerry Falwell
(Falwell on the teletubbies, come on, how much more paranoid can you get?)
::Did he really say this? Check a less biased source.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Falwell's magazine to his supporters (and not even Falwell himself) first brought up the topic, but it was a repeat of what was already being winked at in media circles. Both Time Magazine and TV guide had already brought out the same information (albeit not in a negative form), a fact easily forgotten when the opportunity to blame Jerry Falwell arose. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:06, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I got 10 identical matches on the first page of google...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
::Yes, but he himself did not say this. It was his newspaper. He had no involvement.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I wasn't there, and wikipedia is rather vague about it, but the BBC link is pretty clear, what do you think of his claims about Jews?
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

He said: "God doesn't listen to Jews." --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:20, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

And for all those people with little Israeli flags on their user pages:

"I know a few of you here today don't like Jews.
And I know why. He can make more money accidentally
than you can on purpose.

Rev. Jerry Falwell

The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief.
They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of
their Messiah and Savior.

Jerry Falwell, Listen, America!

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Confronting his critics ==

While I disagree with the Rev on many issues, he was never afraid to discuss his disagreements with others. He would have gladly sat down with Clinton, Dawkins, anyone, and debated any issue. I do wish more people would follow that example, rather than censoring or pushing away those with whom they disagree.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== History will judge him harshly ==

Ultimately, Falwell was one of the group who used religion as a cause for separating rather than uniting. His notoriously stupid remarks about gays just after 9/11, a somewhat thinly disguised anti-semetism, and some absurd remarks on pop culture (you know, the one about the Tele-tubby being a gay role model), rather than appealing to our better selves, goaded our darker sides.

My reading of the new testatment indicates that Jesus preached tolerance and loving thy neighbor. And indeed, when I was a kid, I recall religous folks were always pretty nice people, even their kids couldn't play hockey on Sunday.

Tell you what, read the book of Matthew, look at some old Billy Graham sermons, and forget this mean-spirted blowhard.--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 20:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:So I guess an apology means nothing, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't think that an apology undoes the harm he did to a country that was trying to heal, when he tore the wounds open & rubbed salt in them again.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 21:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::will someone explain exactly what harm he did?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
Bohdan, here [http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/]

Speaker, Frankly, I'm certain Falwell spoke from the heart, and quickly realized America needed to be united in the coming war, and not fighting among ourselves. That's why he immediately issued the apology. Truth is, I'm also fairly certain Falwell gave voice to the sentiments a lot of other Americans were experiencing at the same time. And based upon the daily drumbeat of hatred we see from gays and neopagans directed at Bush, (and comments we've seen here), Falwell was right. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Daily drumbeat of hatred from homosexuals and neopagans? Can you give an... actual example? I'm thrilled to see it.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 21:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Polls say 60%+ nolonger wish to take the war to the terrorists. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I hate to say it, but that's 60% of the American people, right? So it's not like it's exclusively gays and pagans who don't particularly like Bush. I'm sure there are people in the 60% who are not gay or pagan who hate Bush, while not the majority. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 21:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Go to [[:Category:Anti-war movement]] and see who's been anti-war since Falwell made this statement. Incidentally, too bad the NAMBLA article got deleted, they've been leading the anti-war movement since March 2003. But for reference, you can visit NAMBLA advocate [[Harry Hay]]. Seems he's no stranger to anti-war activity and working with America's enemies since the Korean War. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::::That's ''Guilt By Association'', and it is most certainly a fallacy. NAMBLA most certainly has not been ''leading'' the anti-war movement. Have you seen any news reports about NAMBLA organizing anti-war protests? I sure haven't. Not on Fox or otherwise.
::::Then again, you might be implying that the reason why NAMBLA is anti-war is because Falwell accused them of being responsible. As he didn't even mention NAMBLA in the quote, I find this hard to believe. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 07:14, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Past tense ==

Someone who actually sees "edit" rather than "view source" on the article page should go around and change all the verbs to past tense so that instead of saying he does something they say he did something. The man is dead. He's not doing any of those things anymore. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 23:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Name ==

Add: Jerry Laymon Falwell Sr.

Thank you

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== External links ==

Add also a link:

External Links: [http://www.falwell.com/ J. F. Website]

And a pic: Image:Falwell.jpg|right [[Image:Falwell.jpg|right]]

( source:http://www.falwell.com/index.cfm?PID=13737 )

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:03, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Alternatives to Violence Project

2007-05-19T00:41:01Z

Britinme: New page: '''The Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP)''' is an international association of volunteer groups that offers workshops dealing with conflict resolution, responses to violence, and pers...

'''The Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP)''' is an international association of volunteer groups that offers workshops dealing with conflict resolution, responses to violence, and personal growth. It began in 1975 when inmates at Greenhaven Prison (NY) were working with young people who came into conflict with the law. They worked with the [[Religious Society of Friends|Quaker]] Project on Community Conflict to devise a prison workshop. More workshops were requested, and the program spread to other prisons and thence to communities and schools. There are currently nearly 2000 AVP facilitators, all volunteers, in the USA.

The aim of AVP is to give people the tools to help reduce the level of violence in our society by giving them methods of conflict resolution that reduces their own need to resort to violent solutions to situations and problems they encounter. The Alternatives to Violence Project is designed to create successful personal interactions and use what is called in AVP "transforming power" to effect peaceful outcomes to violent situations. The same non-violent skills and techniques that were used by [[Mohandas Gandhi]] and [[Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr]] are used in AVP training.

Although AVP was founded by Quakers and based on their belief in peace and the inward light in everyone, AVP volunteers come all religions, races and walks of life. <ref> http://www.avpusa.org/</ref>

==References==

<references/>

Star

2007-05-19T00:19:03Z

Britinme: /* Research into the age of stars */

Stars are extremely large, extremely luminous bodies of gas at great distances. They are the most obvious features found in the universe. They are principally composed of [[hydrogen]] that is undergoing nuclear [[fusion]] to become [[helium]]. Our Sun is the nearest star to Earth, at a distance averaging 93 million miles. The Earth orbits the Sun in a period of approximately 365.25 days, and this defines the [[year]]. The diameter of the Sun, which is a typical star, is about 870,000 miles and its power output is about 1026 watts. The temperature inside the Sun is estimated to be in excess on ten million degrees, and this is hot enough for [[nuclear reactions]] to occur.

==The Magnitude scale of brightness==
The Greeks devised a rough and ready brightness scale for stars. The brightest stars were designated 'stars of the first magnitude', less bright stars were designated 'stars of the second magnitude', etc., down to stars of the sixth magnitude, which were barely visible to the naked eye. The magnitude scale is still in use, but modern telescopes and photometers have made it very much more exact and rigorous. A star of magnitude 1.0 is now 2.51188643 times as bright as a magnitude 2.0 star, which is 2.51188643 times as bright as a magnitude 3.0 star, and so on. This number has been chosen so that a magnitude 6.0 star is exactly 100 times as bright as a magnitude 1.0 star, i.e. 2.51188643 = 100.4.

The brightness of a star as seen from Earth depends on two things, how luminous it really is, and how far away it is. Stars vary greatly in their luminosity and their distance from Earth. The apparent brightness of a star varies according to the [[inverse-square law]]. Consider two stars that are equal actual brightness, but one is at a distance of 100 [[light-years]] and the other is at a distance of 200 [[light-years]]. The farther star is twice as far away, but it will not appear to be half as bright, it will be only one quarter as bright. More generally, if one star is ''x'' times further away than the other it will appear to be ''x''2 times less bright.

==Variable stars==
Some stars vary in brightness and are known as variable stars. The star [[Algol]] in the constellation of Perseus can drop from its normal magnitude of 2.3 to magnitude 3.5. This is now known to be caused by a dim companion star orbiting Algol, which occasionally passes between Algol and the Earth, blocking some of the light. Other variable stars vary in brightness due to actual variations in the luminosity of the star itself. The time taken from one maximum brightness to the next one is called the '''period'''. The most famous of the variable stars is delta Cepheus, the first-found member of the [[Cepheid]] group of variable stars. In 1908 [[Henrietta Swan Leavitt]] noticed that the variable stars in the [[Magellenic Clouds]] (two nearby galaxies in the [[Local Group]]) had a relationship between their period and their apparent brightness. At that time galaxies outside our own (the [[Milky Way]]) had been discovered, but it was not possible to measure the distances to them. It was soon realised that the variable stars in the Magellenic Cloud were of the Cepheid type. Since Cepheid variables also occur in our [[galaxy]] it was possible measure their distances and thus convert (using the inverse square law) Leavitt's relationship between apparent brightness and period to one of actual brightness and period. Once this formula was discovered, it became possible to apply to Cepheids of unknown distance. By observing their periods, their actual brightness can be calculated and, by the inverse square law, their distance. Through observations of Cepheids in [[globular clusters]] (compact bunches of stars) in our galaxy it was shown that our galaxy is about 300,000 light-years in diameter.

==Research into the age of stars==

A team of astronomers from the University of Texas at Austin McDonald Observatory recently measured the age of one of the oldest stars in the Milky Way, HE 1523-0901, at 13.2 billion years. They used radioactive decay dating techniques. This star is close to the estimated age of the universe, 13.7 billion years.

The team leader, Dr. Anna Frebel, said that it was hard to pin down the age of a star, but that it can be inferred that chemically primitive stars must be very old, since they would have been born before many later generations of stars had provided chemical enrichment to the galaxy. A very few old stars contain huge amounts of some chemical elements, including radioactive thorium and uranium, and astronomers can use known rates of decay to deduce the ages of the stars.

Frebel's team measured the uranium in HE1523-0901 using the UVES spectrograph on the Kueyen Telescope. This is one of four that together comprise the Very Larte Telescope based in Chile. She explained that although uranium had been discovered in two other stars, HE 1523-0901 also contains thorium. Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years while thorium has a half-life of 14 billion years. However, HE 1523-0901 also contains other elements that can be anchored to the radioactive elements - europium, osmium and iridium. This combination provided Frebel with six 'cosmic clocks' that could be used to check each other.

The team hope to gain new experimental data and important clues about the creation and evolution of the chemical elements shortly after the Big Bang. <ref> http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=5533 </ref>

== Young Earth Creationism View ==
[[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists assert that [[materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the origin of stars are errant and contra-evidence and reports of stars forming are invalid. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/403/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/stars.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences21.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#55</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/feedback.asp</ref> In addition, creationists cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of star formation are inadequate:

“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5665/1750</ref>

“Nobody really understands how star formation proceeds. It’s really remarkable.” Rogier A. Windhorst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell, “A Matter of Timing,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, October 1992, p. 30. <ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992SciAm.267Q..26P</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Other References==
The ''Observer's Book of Astronomy'', by Patrick Moore. Published by Frederick Warne and Co. 1967.

The ''Cosmological Distance Ladder'', by Michael Rowan-Robinson. Published by Freeman. 1985.

[[category:astronomy]]