Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Global warming

2008-04-09T04:01:03Z

Frank88: /* False Claims of "Consensus" */ lol, lost the cold war, was that written by a twelve year old?

[[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 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}}

{{liberalism}}

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

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2008-04-09T03:55:57Z

Frank88: /* Kind of funny */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]]

=="A small thing"==
A small thing...the article "River Trent" is unable to be edited because of a "spam filter". Um...what gives? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:24, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

I fixed it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Page Creation ==

Hello,

A few days ago a small group of us tried to create a page on a local conservative activist named J.R. Hedrick to have the page deleted. We read the guidelines and adjusted our page and were hoping we could ask the conservapedia staff to reconsider. We currently have the page wewantjr.homeip.net if you could take a few minutes check out the website see our reasoning and message and reconsider it would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or would like a shortened verstion of our reasoning feel free to email us at wewantjr@yahoo.com.

*Sorry, this is an encyclopedia, not Vanity Fair. For inclusion, one would have to be of national prominence, not a "local hero". Sorry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Can't email other users ==

I try to email other users, I am logged in and I do have a valid email address in my preferences but it won't let me do it. What's up?

:Wismike, maybe the users you've tried to email haven't supplied an email address. When I went to your user page and clicked "Email this user", I got the following notice:
:*This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.{{unsigned|Wismike}}

:You can send me a test e-mail if you want. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

*Users need to supply their email on the preference page in order to send emails to other users. Even if the other user has it enabled, you need to have done it as well. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:20, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== What's wrong with Ishi Press? ==

I can't put ishi press dot com as a ref for Woody Allen marrying his stepdaughter. Spam filter blocks it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:42, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== Outages? ==

There seem to be times when the entire site is protected. What's going on? -[[User:Pipkin|Pipkin]] 16:34, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, indeed there is. Editing, except by those with special rights, is usually turned off over-night (generally 1:00AM to 6:00AM) East Coast United States time. This is due to the high degree of vandalism at the hands of [[deceit|deceitful]] Liberals. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:43, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Uncyclopedia]] and [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]] ==

I think these two articles serve no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, and as written are basically nonsense and inccurate to general knowlege about their subjects. Also it is to note that the alternate spelling of [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]], [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] has been salted. --[[User:WikiLeon|WikiLeon]] 20:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

*Your several posts about this has been noted. The articles will stay. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:48, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== I may have found some nonesense. ==

I am here to report what might be vandalism. I'm not sure, but someone called User: Clavicle made an ususual edit on [[William Shakespeare]]. The edit was on the list of Shakespeare's historical plays. He wrote *[[Austin Kenn]] (1999). I happen to know about Shakespeare's histories and had never heard of the play before. I also knew that Shakespeare died in the 1600s not any period after 1999. This sounded fishy and later on (some months later) when I recieved no reply on the discussion page about this, I investigated. I found that this User: Clavicle had put the play in just in one edit (without putting it in any good order.) He didn't have a page for me to contact him about this, so I decided to try to report this unusual edit. I admit I'm wording it badly and akwardly, but I just thought I'd explain this small case. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:52, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:The user was already blocked for an unrelated offense. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:02, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hopefully that vandalism has been removed? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I removed when I saw it. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 13:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Article Categorization ==

Many of the articles on accounting seem to be government accounting related. Nothing wrong with this, but I believe they should be in a different category, say, Government Accounting.

I would like to make this change, but, feel it would be impolite to simply make the change without contacting the author. However, I cannot seem to do so.

What is the right thing to do? Should I just create a new category (if I know how to do that) and make the changes?

*You go to my user page, find the link to my sandbox on categories, and plead your case to Azi. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:45, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

== Edit to page "gossip" ==

I made an edit to the [[gossip]] page, which has now been reverted. The nature of my edit was to clarify that although gossip is inherently negative, the fact is that the word has multiple connotations. The positive connotation: "gossip" can have a perfectly normal social context as innocuous chatter between groups of people who are interacting. The negative connotation: what was on the page before and now.

I'm used to seeing trollers blocked and edits reverted - most "permanent" edits are made by the sysops etc. But I take great personal offence when the sysop who reverted my edit, "BethanyS", flies off and says: "Don't go around trolling or I will personally block you from this site forever." I believe that to be completely injustified, absolutely insulting to my ideological position as a conservative (the implication being that I'm some sort of liberal who goes around Conservapedia making silly edits) and a baseless assault on my personal character without even considering the reasoning of my edit. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 09:27, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Before I even start posting! ==

I was an avid user in Wikipedia, (Quality) not edit warring and Spam.
Can I move my articles that I improved from Wikipedia?
I am conservative or Liberal, I just hate biased garbage and I am looking to focus mainly on history. (I could care less about politics and hypocrisy). I don't like politicians in general and I don't have a rpoblem with any race or religion.
Is this going to be a problem or should I go my own way, now before I waste my time?--[[User:Validquest|Validquest]] 15:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: In this context, one can always copy and reuse one's own work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:13, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Couldn't create account ==

I tried to create an account but could not find a button to click to do that. I searched around and eventually found a FAQ that account creation was enabled only at certain times of day. It would be helpful if you put that notice right up front on the login/create account screen so people won't wonder why they can't find how to create an account [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 08:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== problem ==

Please help. I tried to look up Christopher Columbus and what displayed was about 1 inch of text followed by a white space covering the rest of the screen with a Go to WP instead listed. I then tried to just email a screenshot of the problem to the administrator but there is no email address. I had to creat an account just to notify 'someone' of this problem. This was my first visit to Conservapedia and I am not sure if I will return, it has been somewhat of a hassle just to try and be kind to report a problem. {{unsigned|DebM}}

:Thank you Deb! I reverted the page and blocked the user. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:10, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks Deb! That vandalism was recent, and rare in escaping detection. Thanks to HelpJazz for correcting it. Welcome and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Problem at Wikipedia ==

I noticed as I was looking at pro life groups on wikipedia they had the "abortion" logo and tag at the bottom, but planned parenthoods page did not
this seemed strange
~Andrew Infanger

== Lesbians ==

I notice that Lesbians is one of the "most wanted" pages, with 7 links to it. This
seems odd to me for a family friendly website. Is this an error, or something I'm misunderstanding? Please clarify, thank you. --Eliza Newton.

*Please sign all posts, Eliza, with four tildes (~). I guess family-friendly means different things to different people. Questions about sexuality are pretty normal, and one thing you can count on CP for is information being presented in a family-friendly manner. Lesbians exist, so ignoring them isn't going to be informative or instructive as to the perversion it is. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:58, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Breaking News" RSS Feed? ==
Hello.

This is my first time interacting here. I'm a member of my school's college conservatives and am working on building their web site. I'm just wondering if by chance Conservapedia has plans to provide an RSS feed of its "breaking news" section"? Do you know if it would be as simple as installing a plug-in of some kind such as "Wikifeed"? Thanks! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 11:33, 15 November 2007 (EST)

== Silly spelling error ==

I suppose this is the correct area to send this message. In the "Wikipedia" article under the "Scandals and Decline" section, paragraph 2, line 3: "which could affect, in thier (sic) words, "'life and death,'". I believe it is supposed to be "their", not "thier". It would be easier if I could just edit the page myself like on "Wikipedia".

Thank you.
-Kriegor191
:The correct place would have been the [[talk:Wikipedia|Wikipedia talk page]], but I see that it's been fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. And please sign your posts by typing four tildes ({{tt|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}}), or using the signature button on the editing toolbar. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:15, 4 December 2007 (EST)

== Serious? ==

I was just wondering, is this meant to be a serious site or a parody of conservatism?

~Sabazi
:Is that meant to be a serious question or a not-so-subtle dig at the site? And please see my comment to the previous poster about signing your posts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:16, 4 December 2007 (EST)

That was a serious question. I couldn't tell, though I take it from your response that it is?

[[User:Sabazi|Sabazi]] 16:34, 4 December 2007 (EST)Sabazi (is that the right way to sign?)
:Yes, it is serious. What makes you think otherwise? And that was the right way to sign, except that there is no need to append your name because it puts it anyway. ''Just'' the four tildes is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Question about Ten Most Viewed Pages ==

Your ten most frequently viewed pages includes 9 entries featuring the word "homosexuality." This seems strange to me, especially as some of the entries are relatively new. Is there a possible alternative explanation for those sites showing up on the Top Ten, besides their popularity? I don't understand much about computers, but, for example, perhaps people have set up computers that repeatedly open up web pages on a particular site, just to skew the numbers?

Thank you. {{unsigned|Harpers}}
: I don't think the server logs would have that information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 5 December 2007 (EST)
::Recommendation: Maybe you guys can track possible abuse using www.sitemeter.com or google analytics? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 18:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==Page move request==
Could someone please move [[Ann Widdicombe]] to Ann Widdecombe (correct spelling). [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:57, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 14:59, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Account Creation suggestion ==

Although I saw the comment that account creation is only allowed at certain times, it might be a good idea to let potential users know what these times are. It took me several attempts over two days to eventually "strike lucky". {{unsigned|Unclebill}}

:I agree. It took me a few times to realise that you could only make an account at certain times during the day. I was trying to find how to make an account last night and gave up. Luckily, I found out an hour or so ago.--[[User:Joel|Joel]] 20:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Sorry you both had troubles registering. I'm sure the relevant people will take note of your issue and maybe something will be added to the registration page [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Agreed with all of the above, but I'm not sure where the info should be added.
:::*The registration page is (if I recall correctly - my memory is acting up right now...) not accessible when account creation is disabled, so it would be of little use there ("If you can read this, you can register" is amusing, but not terribly helpful :P).
:::*On the Login page, it might look a bit distracting (as the majority of users already has an account, so the info would be of little use for them).
:::Maybe our techies can hack up something to the effect of always having the "Register account" link available, but having it point at a "We're sorry, but account creation is currently disabled. Please try again at X o'clock in timezone Y" page? (I believe we have a Help page to that effect, but I also believe it's not exactly prominently linked for users who are new to the site). --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Admin Question ==

How is it possible to become an Admin to help keep people from being stupid? {{unsigned|Sohsowski}}
:Admins aren't here to do that. Admins carry out essential maintenance of the site. One tip might be: "not to register an account and then throw mud at one's fellow editors" however :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (EST)

==Logo request==
I'd like to create a link to Conservapedia on my websites. Can you provide a jpg of your logo? {{unsigned|Usmale}}
:[[Image:Conservapedia_logo.png|right|100px]] Current Conservapedia logo - Copyright 2007 Philip Beach --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Um... no? It looks similar, but it's definitely different. [http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png The actually used file] - different "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" font, and slightly different "Conservapedia" lettering. Can be easily seen when you look at the positions of the "v" and the last "a" in relation to the background. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:17, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: Here you go.
::: [[Image:Conservlogo_logo_highres2.png|thumb|350px|left]]

[[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)

{{clear}}

== Found A Cuss Word ==

In the Userbox Index, there is a cuss word in a userbox in the uncategorized section.

It's called User lies and stats

In your third commandment, your call for family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language pages.

a kid could easily stumble into it.

I'm just trying to help Conservapedia.

'''Edit:'''

Opps, I didn't realized that I doubled posted, I thought that it didn't make it, sorry. Delete the other one please.

{{unsigned|EkulR29}}
: I see that Fox has deleted the template, and I've now deleted the link to it in the uncategorised index. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Confused by this message at my talk page ==

"Come back next year, when you're serious about helping write encyclopedia articles."

I didn't think there was restrictions on creating articles.{{unsigned|User:EkulR29}}

:I can't speak for why you were blocked, but the "next year" thing was a joke, I think. You were blocked on December 31st for one day, so "next year" would only be one day later. 15:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: You say it was 31st December, but when I look at his page history, it says that the message was left at 09:02 on 1st January, 2008. Of course, that is according to my time zone settings. What time zone is EkulR29 in? Yes, the message has 17:02 on 31st December on it, but at the very least, that could be "confusing".
:: EkulR29, I suspect that Ed Poor's comment may have been because you have made about 60 edits so far, only four of which were to anything other than this page and your user page. In other words, you seem to be more concerned with telling us about yourself (which is okay in itself) than with actually helping write an encyclopedia.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:11, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== How do you? ==

Ask for a change on a protected page? And is there any way to ask for a page to be unprotected? I imagine any vandalism could be fairly quickly reverted on many pages anyway. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:39, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:To ask for a change on a protected page, ask on that page's talk page. To ask for a page to be unprotected, it's best to ask the Administrator who protected it. If that is not practicable, ask another Administrator. If you ask on the page's talk page, the first administrator to notice it could unlock it, but it's possible that nobody will notice for a while. If you ask on an Administrator's talk page, that Administrator should notice very quickly if they are on, or as soon as they next log on, but that might take a day or so (assuming they are not on holidays). If you choose to ask more than one administrator on their talk pages, let them know that you have asked others. Of course, in all such cases, your request might be declined. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Editing Help ==

I am having a hard time editing articles. Could you explain me how to go about that process? I'm used to using wikipedia, where they just have an edit button by the text, but here at Conservapedia I can't seem to find the edit button. Please help!
:Same as on this page; third tab from the left at top of article. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== Uploading an images or images ==

How do I obtain upload privileges? I want to upload a picture on a page.

Christopher Persaud

You hang around for a long time until you are trusted with them. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 15:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Please be more specific. Thanks. {{unsigned|Cperlobo}}

:If you have a specific image you want to be uploaded then please submit it at [[Conservapedia:Image_upload_requests|image upload request]]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:35, 27 January 2008 (EST)

: See [[Conservapedia:User rights|User rights]] (Requesting further rights), which is linked from [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide|Editor's guide]] which is in the welcome box on your talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:16, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Firefox search bar ==

I'm not sure what is involved technically, but I use Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser and regularly use the search bar in the top right for Google and Wikipedia searches. Though this search bar recognizes Conservapedia as a possible search engine, Firefox won't allow me to add it as one. The message
Firefox could not download the search plugin from:
http://www.conservapedia.com/opensearch_desc.php
appears. I don't know if this is the correct place to report technical problems (or if you are already aware of this), but I thought I should report it. Is there a reason for this? [[User:Hampshire2600|Hampshire2600]] 20:10 29 January, 2008 (EST)

== Enlisting College Student Help ==

I'm a member of a campus conservatives organization, and I think Conservapedia could definitely benefit by enlisting the help of college students to improve the quality of articles, as well as expand Conservapedia's contents. I might recommend creating some sort of program to encourage campus conservative groups to have a part in Conservapedia's development? Thanks! [http://www.honor-bound.org Honorbound Conservatives] [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 19:21, 5 February 2008 (EST)

== "In The News ==

Under "in the news" on the "Main Page" there is this entry:
Liberal denial has begun for NIU killings: "Grad student killer didn't fit the profile," screams the Associated Press.
In fact, the killer did fit the profile of a public school-trained atheistic: dressed in all black, was an above-average student (at age 27!), and obsessed with self-injury.

The above entry implies that all people who have attended public school fit the profile of someone who would murder people. This is a woefully inaccurate and unwise statement. There are other ideas I would like to share concerning the inappropriateness this entry, but it I would not want these additional comments to become public.

{{unsigned|Blazer}}

== Question about Religion ==

Hi, I'm an atheist who stumbled upon this website after a friend told me about it. I am a Liberal, and although I disagree with some points you present on this site, one thing I found has truly offended me. In the artible "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia", the page begins with a graph showing the number of Wikipedia users by religion. It shows a large amount atheists compared to other religions. First of all, I read this as being considered a "problem", and I would like to know why. Secondly, I assume from the "Daily Bible Verse" that an overwhelming amount of Conservapedia users are Christians. Is that better? I assure you I'm not here to stir up a controversy, I'm just puzzled and would like a straight answer. [[User:VonShroom|VonShroom]] 19:59, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:Perhaps the graph needs more explanation, but (not having put it there myself), I'd say that it's to illustrate the cause of much of the bias, with the number of atheists editing on Wikipedia being quite out of proportion of the number of atheists in society. Yes, a large proportion of Conservapedia users are Christians. This is more in proportion with their representation in society, particularly American society (where most of the editors would be from) and even if this were not so, Conservapedia is explicitly conservative, not neutral, as Wikipedia ''claims'' to be. Furthermore, I would claim that Christianity is the only true religion. People of other religions, including atheism, disagree, of course, but in most cases consider ''their'' religion to be the only correct one, so Christians are not alone in believing their religion to be correct. Atheists often claim that we shouldn't claim to be the correct religion because we can't know for sure, or they are ''all'' subjective, or some similar reasoning, but rarely substantiate this claim, and usually exempt their own beliefs from this statement on the self-serving grounds that atheism is not a religion (if you think that way, please read the [[Religion]] article). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== UKIP ==

The current article on UKIP is a direct copy from Wikipedia. Administrators/sysops might care to check this and take appropriate action [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:13, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've reverted it and given the editor a 1-day block. Repeats will be dealt with more severely. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:15, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::You don't waste much time - I hadn't even finished writing my first message! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:17, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::I'm watching recent changes as I listen to the sport on TV so I spotted the plagiarism before I saw your message. It's always a big giveaway when the text is riddled with red-links and calls to templates that we don't have here. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 11:21, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Grammatical errors ==

Hi,
I just looked up Palestine in Conservapedia and found two errors in the first few lines. Do you have editing and correcting capability? I love the idea of this website to combat the terrible Wikipedia, but to be taken seriously you must have a way to correct grammatical errors and awkward sentences. Otherwise, people won't use the website for reference.
Thanks,
Barb
bhhawley4@gmail.com

:Yes, when you go to most pages there is an "edit" tab at the top. Please correct our grammar and sentence structure if you see something that needs work! It's rare, but we sometimes make mistakes ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:39, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== A Call For Conservapedia's Rise to Activism ==

While the left continues to deride just about any effort the right makes to build a solid knowledgebase on the web, I saw in Conservapedia from its earliest days an opportunity to really build a powerhouse of information. In today's age of information warfare (between corporations, nation-states, and political organizations), managing vasts amounts of information has now become key in gaining the upper hand in any dispute.

I confess, I'm merely a small fish among thousands here, so I have no idea what major priorities the admins of this site are currently working on. Does Conservapedia have plans to become a powerful political tool for serious students and leaders within the conservative movement, or is it just a hobby? Think about it: there exists no alternative general conservative knowledgebase out there. Conservapedia is the only major conservative wiki (that I know of) that can fill a great need within the conservative movement. But I'm not sure that we're using this opportunity toward having an immediate impact on the world of politics today.

I say this, because anytime there's a news article or editorial that comes up, I like to look up the political background and information behind people and organizations. And unless the personality is unavoidably famous, my searches on this site turn up nothing. Maybe this is because much of what Conservapedia focuses on are broad issues, categories, scientific and religious doctrine rather than the current big players in today's world?

Consider that this is an election year. In political terms, we are now in a state of war, and the battle is about go nuclear once the Democrats crawl their way out of the mess they're in. But you wouldn't know it when you look at the most recent edits on this site. With so many registered users, why isn't there a concerted effort to dig up and record every detail of each candidate's career and policies? There are literally hundreds of conservative blogs out there recording precious intel that could be of great use to someone looking for a central location to find all that info. But much of the info you see here on [[Obama]], for example, is mostly biographical.

I may be way off base in posting all of this, but I'm wondering, are there any plans like I'm describing already underway, or is this just beyond Conservapeida's priorities at this time? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:33, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: We welcome suggestions and criticisms but, frankly, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Your only example is our [[Obama]] entry, which you complain is "mostly biographical." But what else would one expect about a political candidate, particularly one who has no clear beliefs of his own?

: As to the supposedly great conservative blogs, I'm not sure what "precious intel" they are conveying that isn't in our entries. If you're referencing gossip, that's not going to make a difference and we're not going to waste time on it.

: We welcome your contributions, and perhaps in reviewing those we can learn what you have in mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: I might be a touch at odds with Aschlafly's aims here, but one problem I have with your (Alexander's) post is that it appears very American-centric. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

I saw up above that it's ok to copy things if you wrote them yourself. What if you didn't write them yourself, but the information is entirely accurate and you give sources? Like Wikipedia's stuff on math is really good and I'd like to work on that (as a place to start!), but if we can't use that stuff, then I'll start from scratch. [[User:OhioChris|OhioChris]] 12:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can use their sources as a starting point, but our copyright clauses are incompatable so you can not actually copy the text itself. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:42, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Kind of funny ==

This site is kind of funny, and it's rather nicely done to be convincing that it's serious, I especially like the American flag logo thingy, that's hilarious, but it's still somewhat lacking, are there any really amusing articles here? [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:38, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:An American flag logo is hilarious? Nevertheless, I'm glad we have brightened up your day. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::Well ya, in its context, as an ironic symbol of conservatism, also the way it's displayed as Americans tend to do as if it's a symbol of greatness, it's a good parody. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Okay, whatever. Please familiarize yourself with the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] before editing. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, I was hoping those would be funnier, I don't really like uncyclopedia, but this site has the potential to be funnier. [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2008-04-09T03:48:38Z

Frank88: /* Kind of funny */

Conservapedia talk:Userboxes/Religion

2008-04-09T03:45:20Z

Frank88:

If anyone unlocks this could they add this template please? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 19:04, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

{{tl|User UnitedMethodist}}
:Done (and unlocked). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:06, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

==Religion==
Uh, where are the userboxes for other, more normal beliefs like atheism? [[User:Frank88|Frank88]] 23:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2008-04-09T03:38:51Z

Frank88: Kind of funny