Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Violent video games

2008-04-05T03:07:10Z

Donaldson:

Violent video games teach and encourage the players -- typically children -- to engage in horrific virtual violence.{{Who says}} Examples include:

* Postal 2: Apocalypse Weekend (M-rated) -- The ads for this game boast that new weapons will enable you "to hack your enemies to meaty bits!" It involves a game character who commits violent acts against unarmed civilians. Other features in the Postal series include: urinating on people to make them vomit in disgust, using cats as shotgun silencers, and playing fetch with dogs using human heads.

* The Punisher (M-rated) -- Game player is able to jam knives into victims' sternums and pull up to increase the damage, cut off heads, ram a character's open mouth onto a curb, run a character over with a forklift, rip a character's arms off with an industrial hook, and set a character on fire in an electric chair.

* Resident Evil: 4(M-rated) -- Game player uses a special blood-splattered chainsaw controller designed for playing the game, which includes chainsaw decapitations and impalements, and characters ripping off other character's throats and biting off their heads.

* Manhunt(M-rated) -- Game player's character is James Earl Cash, a convicted serial killer facing execution. The execution is ordered to be faked so that a character named "The Director" can use Cash as a star in a series of snuff films. As the Cash character kills other characters, by suffocating them with a plastic bag, slicing them up with a chainsaw, shooting them point blank with a nail gun, stabbing them in the eyeballs with a glass shard, or beheading them with a cleaver, The Director makes sexually vulgar comments. The game has two difficulty settings: fetish and hardcore.

* God of War(M-rated) -- Game features disembowelment, mouth-stabbing, eye-gouging, severed limbs, and human sacrifice.

The Court of Appeals for the [[Eighth Circuit]] declared this to be [[free speech]] and struck down a [[Minnesota]] law that prohibited minors from purchasing or renting video games bearing a "Mature" or "Adult Only" rating.<ref>''Entm't Software Ass'n v. Swanson'', 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5634 (8th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008).</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

* [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60631 Violent video games free speech?]

User talk:DanH

2008-04-04T20:50:04Z

Donaldson: /* ChrisGomez */

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive2]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive3]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive4]]

== IRC ==

Does Conservapedia have an official or unofficial IRC channel? - Hak

:I'm not sure. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:54, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Leptospirosis ==

Just saw that an article named Leptospirosis was deleted. wonder why? can I re-create it?

thanks--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 15:49, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Martin ==

Why? There is nothing wrong with those links. On the contrary, It can give us more traffic. Do you have a proof that Google would not like it? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:I talked with Andy about it awhile back. Also, I've discussed search engines with User:Conservative. Google does not like it when links are placed at random without a clear correlation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:06, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Ok. Let them be until Andy say the last word. They are not without correlation. They are actors all of them. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:10, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::He is already in the Actors category, which links to all other actors anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: For us it is better to have more traffic and that is a better way than in the Category place. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:13, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Animals A etc.==
Can you move [[Animals A]] to [[Animal Terms A]]
[[Animals C]] to [[Animal Terms C]]
[[Animals G]] to [[Animal Terms G]]
[[Animals P]] to [[Animal Terms P]]
[[Animals V]] to [[Animal Terms V]]
[[Animals W]] to [[Animal Terms W]]
[[Animals Y]] to [[Animal Terms Y]]
[[Animals Z]] to [[Animal Terms Z]]
? --[[User:Qweki2|Qweki2]] 22:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Possible Bans?==
What is the highest possible block time? (besides infinite). Also, can you make a ban of [[User:Liberal9188]] and [[User:HHSFake]].. so I'm not tempted to use either of those accounts again.
:I have one final request.. could you ban me for 3 years, 1 month, and 4 days? Or 5 years if you don't want to type all that in. The reason can be: "request by user". Thanks. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 09:44, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
::I once copped a fourteen year stretch. I think the sysop must have been bored. [[User:HarryWharton|HarryWharton]] 10:43, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For banning, can you do something like "3 days, 1 day, 4 days, etc." o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 21:37, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== So, what's the policy ==

The reason JM unfairly banned me was because I was removing the nonsensical see-also links on various pages. My reason for doing so was because it isn't encyclopedic. I began doing it ''en masse'' when I saw what you wrote to JM that it wasn't our policy. His response: It'll boost our google rankings. (VERY encyclopedic).

So, what's the policy now? I don't want another ban. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:43, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Tread lightly when working with Sysops showing them the respect they are due. If you are going to be making changes to their work, then talk with them first and make sure there is a common understanding. This should be followed for all people, but of course Sysops can also ban you for it. Unless there is a specific written policy saying all 'See Also' sections should be removed, then it is unwise to attempt to remove them ''en masse'' on your own. Talk page discussions between sysops, especially before a specific resolution has been reached, do not count. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thank you. [[User:Feuerstein|Feuerstein]] 00:14, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
==Why not copy from Wikipedia? ==

I wrote those articles on Wikipedia , Asteroid.--[[User:Asteroid|Asteroid]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
CLtFn--[[User:Asteroid|Asteroid]] 01:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Blessings to you on Easter - ==

Dear Dan H, You have been doing wonderful work here. :) Wishing you every blessing and joy this Easter - [[User:Taj|Taj]] 00:57, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Happy Easter and...... ==

Happy Easter! I am sending you a private email in about 2 minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:10, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

While I appreciate the action, now might be a time to save oneself. Thankyou, though. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]

== Great example ==

Great example of [[opportunity costs]], Dan!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks! Opportunity cost is maybe the most useful thing I've learned about in college so far. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:55, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Request ==

Dear Dan, I am currently trying to get night edit rights so that I can better contribute to Conservapedia. As a sysop who has had experience working with me, I would like to ask for your support. If you feel that I deserve edit rights, please say so [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Request_.2F_question|here]]. If you do not think I deserve them, I fully understand and I thank you anyway. Sincerely, [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Name-calling==

Could there be any more damning evidence of the bankruptcy of liberal thought then the incessant campaign of name-calling by liberals against conservatives? If they had a rebuttal to conservative thought, they could simply present it in the [[Marketplace of ideas]]. Calling people liars isn't going to help their cause much. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Deborah ==

Yes, She seems to have expertice in several areas. [[User:BertSchlossberg]] also and she deleted several sentences from his work failing the discussion both had about that subject.
:I'll have to look at that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:: See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Midrash&oldid=418826] First strike she did. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:52, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the link. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:57, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Tools ==

Mr. Schlafly created it, I have not heard of him doing any strange vandalism. ;) [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 03:15, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:Haha... oops. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:26, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Christianity templates ==

Dan, you just protected a bunch of almost identical templates (user, Protestant, Baptist etc.) which could be better written as a single template with a parameter. I was about to rewrite them when I saw that you had locked them. I won't do it now as it's late in my time zone, but would appreciate access to modify them at some point. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:Unprotected. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:09, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Satan ==

Do you think you could unprotect Satan? (On this site) I think we could handle any vandals. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== ChrisGomez ==
Really good block there Dan, hearty congratulations. Never mind he's been working his fingers to the bone making improvements to CP, he's a sock so he's got to go.... Clever guy. [[User:Peason|Peason]] 14:38, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
:How would you know? You don't have access to checkuser. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::So what's the scoop? I'm interested as well. He added a lot of thick, meaty content with nary a peep. Are these the people you don't want here? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]]
:::It's a user making a whole lot of socks, some of which engaged in poor conduct besides Gomez, and it's all been done by one individual. If this user wants to come back, then it's only going to be one name, one account, no proxies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:20, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I see. Are the posts which are considered "poor conduct" by the other user(s) being made at the same time as ChrisGomez? What I'm saying is all it takes is a spiteful lib co-worker, using the same proxy from work, to walk behind is desk and see that he's editing CP. Any liberal would be sneaky enough to create his own username and password and start trolling.
::::When I was banned from Wikipedia (long, wondeful story), it stopped about 1200 people from changing anything.[[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 16:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:DanH

2008-04-04T20:49:41Z

Donaldson: /* ChrisGomez */

Dinosaur

2008-04-04T20:27:57Z

Donaldson: /* Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings */ the author of this reference has publically admitted it was a hoax http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/

[[Image:Fdt566e4.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Triceratops skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History.]]
'''Dinosaurs''' were large, reptilian creatures which are now generally believed to be extinct. The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurs.asp Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>, from the [[Greek]] words δεινός (deinos [actual pronunciation: dhinos]) and σαύρα (saura [savra]), meaning "terrible lizard."

==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in [[Theory of evolution|evolution]], which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref>

[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.

In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.<ref>Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22robert+bakker%22&sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]</ref>

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

== Different Perspectives ==

Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth. Young-Earth creationists reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

===Creationary Perspective===
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]
[[Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] believe, from the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[creation week]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref>

They use [[archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Extinction ====

Creationists reject the "Great Impact Theory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref>

====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]
* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-member''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** The description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Today" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the artwork the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]]]]
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.

* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====
Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}

Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who stated the following:
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>}}

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}

Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===

The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> A layer of rock containing high concentrations of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref>The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the Yucatan Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref>
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs—although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks found higher in the rock layers than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks lower down.{{fact}}

====An Explosion of new species ====

The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref> Cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning that they consider all bird species today as, technically, dinosaurs.<ref>[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Accessed 30 May 2007.</ref>

==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==
It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref>
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" />

Evolutionists point out that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones shows them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Young Earth Creationists believe that these methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.

Creationists note that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus assert that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref>

Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists assert there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" />

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

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

User talk:DanH

2008-04-04T20:16:32Z

Donaldson: /* ChrisGomez */

Indiana

2008-04-04T15:07:39Z

Donaldson: added more information - more to come as time permits

{{USState
|name=Indiana
|flag=Indiana_State_Flag.gif
|motto="The Crossroads of America"
|nick=Crossroads of America
|capital=Indianapolis
|language=English
|governor=Mitch Daniels
|gparty=Republican
|senator1=Evan Bayh
|s1party=Democrat
|senator2=Richard Lugar
|s2party=Republican
|population=
|date=December 11, 1816 (19th)
}}
'''Indiana''' was the nineteenth state to enter the union. Nicknamed "The Hoosier State", is encompasses a geographical area of 36,291 square miles (38th in size among United States), and has a population of 6,195,643, according to a 2003 census. Its capital and largest city is [[Indianapolis]]. Indiana is bordered by [[Ohio]], [[Kentucky]], [[Illinois]], and [[Michigan]].

Indiana is recognized as the 'Limestone capital of the world' with more [[limestone]] quarried from the state than anywhere else in the world.

==Notable people from Indiana==

* Hoagy Carmichael, Songwriter
* Jim Davis, Creator of Garfield the Cat
* Eugene V Debs, Socialist Presidential Candidate
* Orville Redenbacher, [[Popcorn]] Magnate
* Steve McQueen, Actor
* James Dean, Actor
* Karl Malden, Actor
* Kurt Vonnegut, Novelist
* Lew Wallace, Civil War General, Author ( Ben Hur )
* Wendell Wilkie Presidential Candidate 1940.
* Alfred Kinsey, Sexual behaviour researcher
*Senator [[Evan Bayh]] an alleged Presidential Candidate and former governer.
*Notorious bank robber [[John Dillinger]] was born in Brightwood.
*[[Astronaut]] Gus Grissom was born in Mitchell.
*Former President [[Benjamin Harrison]] lived in Indianapolis and represented Indiana as a Senator.
*[[William Henry Harrison]], a former President and the grandfather of Benjamin Harrison, was the first governor of Indiana territory.
*Singer [[Michael Jackson]] is from Gary.
*Comedian David Letterman was born in Indianapolis.
*[[Mike Pence]] is a current [[Republican Party|Republican]] member of the [[United States House of Representatives|US House of Representatives]] from Indiana and has been mentioned a possible candidate for the presidency.
*Former [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]] [[Dan Quayle]] was born in Indianapolis.
*Harland David Sanders (also known as Colonel Sanders), founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken, was born in Henryville.

{{USstates}}
[[Category:US state]]

Global warming

2008-04-04T14:49:48Z

Donaldson: /* Al Gore's Claims */ typo, added link

[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]

'''Global warming''' is an increase in average air temperature in the [[Earth]]'s atmosphere. In the modern period of global warming, a slight increase of {{temperature|0.8|1.4}} has been measured at weather stations throughout the world, since around 1850, when organized records began to be kept.
As far back as temperature records can be reconstructed, periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated; see [[ice age]]s and [[interglacial warming]].

==Controversy==
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}

Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for modern periods of global warming; see "[[greenhouse warming]]" and [[global warming theory]].<ref>Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]</ref>

Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that:

*Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific. <ref>http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf</ref>

Politician [[Al Gore]] calls it a [[moral issue]], while scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, "It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it." <ref>http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On%20line%20extra%20materials/Climate%20change%20-%20lindzen%20interview.doc</ref>
However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.{{Fact}}

In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850.

The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.

Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:
* 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe [[anthropogenic global warming theory|the warming is due to humans]], while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. <ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] </ref>

"Clinging to alarmist scenarios for which there is no evidence, is simply exploitation of public gullibility." <ref>[http://www.iop.org/activity/groups/professional/emg/Newsletter/file_21729.doc The Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], [[Richard Lindzen|Richard S. Lindzen]], ''Institute of Physics'', April 2007, page 11</ref>

==The Modern Warm Period==
[[Image:Artic 1979.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|A computer projection comparing the Polar Ice Mass in 1979 (left) and 2000 (right).]]
Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<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> How much of this is due to contamination of the temperature record from the [[urban heat island]] effect is hard to assess. Efforts are currently underway to detect and remove this bias. Spurious warming trends that might be considered as global warming can occur almost anywhere. <ref>http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/01/29/do-urban-areas-have-larger-long-term-temperature-trends-than-other-locations/feed/</ref>
Nonetheless, controversy has persisted over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. <ref>http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/01/29/do-urban-areas-have-larger-long-term-temperature-trends-than-other-locations/feed/</ref>

According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, 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 or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

A [[United Nations]] panel ([[IPCC]]) asserts that most of the warming since around 1850 is human-caused. Global warming proponents call this panel "authoritative". Others question its objectivity, and a handful of scientists have resigned from the panel in protest over unauthorized changes in scientific reports.

In February, 2007, the [[IPCC|Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], whose members were appointed by their governments, 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. Several members of this panel later complained their contributions were misrepresented in the final report.

In 2008, a study revealed that the worlds glaciers had shrunk an average of 4.9 feet in 2006, compared to an average of one foot a year from 1980 to 1999.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/03/16/un.climate.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview Glaciers shrinking at record rate]</ref> On 25 March, 2008, the antarctic Wilkens ice shelf began to break up, losing 220 square miles, with an area the size of [[Connecticut]] at risk.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/25/antarctic.ice/index.html Massive ice shelf on verge of breakup]</ref>.

===IPCC controversy===
A reporter for the ''Chicago Tribune'' called the IPCC "the top body of climate change scientists in the world". <ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704280477apr29,1,4275902.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</ref>

Fred Singer and other scientists dispute this view. 


==False Claims of "Consensus"==

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,

:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, liberal activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989, shortly after the communist nations lost the Cold War.


==The Hockey Stick Temperature Reconstruction==
[[Image:Hockey stick chart ipcc.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The flawed Hockey Stick graph in a 2001 IPCC report shows blue proxy values along the "shaft" with red instrumental values superimposed as the "blade".]]
One of the main pieces of evidence for anthropogenic global warming presented 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.

While dramatic, the graph encountered serious questions from the beginning. It failed to reproduce two Northern Hemisphere climate episodes that were well documented in the literature, the Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age (it should be noted that these were not global phenomenons, but were limited to Europe and Greenland; the Mann diagram concerned global average temperatures). Concerned about these discrepancies, [[Stephen McIntyre]] and [[Canadian]] economist Ross McKitrick attempted to reproduce the result and 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 {{temperature|6|11}} 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.

==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} 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>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

==Politics of Global Warming==

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.9 °F over the second half of the 20th Century.

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.

*In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

==Al Gore's Claims==

*[[Al Gore]] claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>


*Gore claims the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine." <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>

*Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes. <ref>http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</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==
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
*[[Global Warming Controversy]]
*[[Politics of global warming]]
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from "More News"]]

==External Links==

*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[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://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]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===

*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[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==
{{reflist}}

[[category:earth science]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-04-03T21:10:52Z

Donaldson: Suggestion about article

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== 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! '''We 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)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused about the nature of this encyclopedia. Should a wiki-based encyclopedia be able to be edited by it's user community? Is the present system democratic? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 13:20, 14 December 2007 (GMT+1)
:As a general rule, yes it is edited by its community, but sometimes articles need to be locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::Could I ask why? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 01:26, 17 December 2007 (GMT+1)
::: In general (I'm not specifically talking about this article), two reasons would be repeated vandalism and edit wars. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:It's also worth pointing out that Pluto is so far out that any increase in warming there from the sun would effectively fry the Earth! This is basic astronomy. Let us not forget that planets are in elliptical orbits - not perfect circles - which take them closer to and then further away from the sun. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 06:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Controversy over the facts ==

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==

The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace

: Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no "November 23, 2003" issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro "example" of Gore "being wrong". There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see [http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2003- here]). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific", but used as a credible source in another, "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes"? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another? {{unsigned|Creationist}}
: I've not studied the particular references you make, but the general principle that if you must either reject or accept everything that someone or some group says is fallacious. There can be good reasons for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data, including some being factual research and the other being opinion, some being based on good research while the other is not, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC? I attempted to check the validity of the source used to discredit Gore's and the URL no longer exists. # ↑ http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. None of the references used in the section discrediting Gore are valid, since the URL's no longer exist.

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". {{unsigned|Gantczak}}

:I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. {{unsigned|Calebdelworth84}}

== Ed Poor ==

[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The [[Anthropogenic Global Warming]] (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out [[greenhouse gas]]es like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that [[natural forces]] account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for [[Kyoto Protocol]] or are partisan supporters of [[Democratic Party]] candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US [[federal funding]] is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==
In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
**This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work.
**It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

<blockquote>
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated. 

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising. 

'''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."''' 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. 

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.''' 

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." '''The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.''' 

'''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Are the images really necessary?==
Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with Ed... ==

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

== Needed Entry ==
In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}

*No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

*Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers ''think'' or ''believe'' or ''guess'' something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.
But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event. 
:We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

*Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, there are very few other things which we ''can'' blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.
:Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.
:The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).
:I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::If you know anything about [[solar variation]] and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how [[cosmic rays]] affect [[cloud cover]].

::As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.
:::The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.
:::It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.
:::However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.
:::I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Don't say ''it is believed'' when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a [[hypothesis]] or a [[theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::A small selection:
:::http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)
:::http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)
:::http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)
:::http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)
:::There are numerous others. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

: Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it.
:* Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying "in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture", but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days.
:* Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire", but the alleged "global warming" is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise?
:* The same goes for Malachi 4:1's "that shall burn as an oven". Or would you like to claim that we're in the "pre-heat" stage? [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)

:I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.

:First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.

:So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not "delay" the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the ''percentage'' (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO2, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO2. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.

:I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO2 absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO2 only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO2 absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb ''incoming'' radiation as well, which leads to global ''cooling'', not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!

:I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

::To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute.
::On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say "delay" because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!
:::As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T<~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest "trapped"). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. [[User:QBeam]]

:::Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this ''isn't'' what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the "doubling CO2 will cause X" mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that ''every'' doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::::One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating.

::::I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. [[User:QBeam]] 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT)

:::::First of all, how can you say "the models aren't built on first principles" if you've "never seen [any published] models?" (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are ''not'' based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they ''aren't'' using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.

:::::At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
::If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a "buzzword," even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I dunno, if it's buzzwords it sure fooled me (twice)! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Article is Thin ==

Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system.

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

*You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

== Request ==

Can somebody add [[:Category:Liberal Myths]]? Please and thank you, God bless. {{unsigned|RyanMiller}}
:It is not just liberals. Pat Robertson is on the boat, too! {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::Not to mention the reinsurance industry. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re - both huge businesses that insure insurance companies - have published numerous reports on the status of global warming, or rather global climate change as it should be referred to. If they're worried about this, I think that we should be too. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Millions of Years ==

I am a firm believer in the Bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old.

However, the article states, "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)."

This view is not consistent with the Bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the Bible? According to the Bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the Bible never mentioned one.

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

: Are you in the habit of not capitalizing [[Bible]]? Hope you don't mind my asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Are you in the habit of providing irrelevant comments? If it is your mission to correct everyone's grammar on this site, you have a long quest ahead of you. {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::I hope that you understand that there is difference between not capitalizing ''Bible'' and a common grammar error. This site is also frequently vandalized by atheists, it's normal that Mr.Schlafly is wary. Don't take it personally. Another point: please sign your posts with four 'tilde' ('~') characters, like this: [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I now realize my mistake in grammar and it has been corrected. In the normal course of my day, I usually do not type Bible and that is the root of my mistake. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 13:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

: I noticed that line there recently and wanted to change it, but couldn't quickly come up with an alternative. I don't think simply deleting the line is appropriate, because it is validly pointing out that the evidence (according to the secular view) is not consistent with the claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I agree and thanks with the explanation. The other point of view will help provide a neutral standpoint. I believe that most Christians, including myself, would not agree with that statement.

==Source of the gasses
The article needs to mention that carbion dioxide does not come from industry. There was a movie that showed it was from oceans.
I tried to add this but, the edit button is broken for this artical.

== Section about global warming's unfalsifiability ==

I'd like to add a section about how global warming advocates see everything as proof that global warming is happening - e.g. glaciers melting, glaciers growing, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, less frequent and weaker hurricanes, unusually warm winters, bitterly cold winters, etc. This is easily documented from news articles over the past few years. If everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it, then it is unfalsifiable and thus is an invalid scientific theory. Your thoughts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:I like the idea of a section pointing out the fact that everything these days seems to be related to global warming, but I think it's going too far to say that because various different people use different (seemingly) contradictory examples, that they all believe all of these examples, especially if many of them are from non-experts. Also, if GW ''were'' really happening, then you wouldn't be able to "disprove it", but that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. I think there's a subtle but important distinction there.

:I think you are on the right track, and a section about this would be interesting and enlightening, but you need to be extremely careful about your wording and what sources you use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Order of Article Items ==

I would humbly suggest that an Admin switch #1 with #2 - that is, put # 2 "The Modern Warm Period" first, then the #Controversy second. I think it would better convey the details about "global warming" before the controversy is discussed.

Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

User:Donaldson

2008-04-03T20:59:55Z

Donaldson: New page: Greetings!

Greetings!

User talk:Donaldson

2008-04-03T20:59:48Z

Donaldson: Removing all content from page

User talk:Donaldson

2008-04-03T20:59:29Z

Donaldson: New page: Greetings!

Greetings!