Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-22T04:34:13Z

Gulik3: /* AEI and Exxon-Mobil */

{{Protected|TK}}

== Editing This Page ==

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

== Biased Line ==

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

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

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

(that he has problems trying to give away)

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

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

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

== Points ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== The whole article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Al Gore Header ==

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

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

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

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

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

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

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

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

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

== Unlocking ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Liberal bias==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Celsius ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Political bias==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I removed this uncited statement:

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

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

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

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

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

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

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

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

== Image ==

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

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

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

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

== " removing liberalness" ==

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

== How about these changes? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Neptune ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

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

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

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

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

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

==AGW==

Cut from article:

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

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

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

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

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

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

==Liberal Falsehood==

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

== Hockey Stick ==

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

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::The wording that Jaques keeps deleting was previously approved by sysop Phillip J Rayment. These deletions smack of vandalism are against the CP commandments. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:George W. Bush

2007-05-22T04:29:21Z

Gulik3: /* This is one sad page... */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Liberal Media? ==
um, isn't that an opinion phrase? I don't really think there's a scientific basis for such a remark.

:::Didn't you hear? This is conservapedia, a place where ignorance coalesces into a gungy goo of people who think their opinions are always right. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a goshdang Communist! Liberal Media, haha, oh boy that's a larf.

:::::Everyone thinks their opinions are right. That's why they're their opinions. But you are right, the phrase "liberal media" has become an oft-lampooned indication of conservative paranoia. The use of it will only serve to make this article sound Stephen Colbert-ish. Not only do I think the phrase should be deleted; I think it should become the policy of conservapedia to strive to avoid it in the future. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::The [[Liberal-Biased Media]] is the GOP's equivalent of Hillary Clinton's [[Vast Right-wing Conspiracy]], as well as being an all-purpose scapegoat from when the facts turn out to have an anti-Bush agenda. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Considering this page has been locked, I'd greatly appreciate it if an administrator would remove this clearly biased phrase.--[[User:Ge Ming|Ge Ming]] 15:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

Why's this page locked? It's not going to get any better if you don't let people add to it.

The SysOp locked it b/c of rampant vandalism. It's an obivous target for such action{{citation needed}}.

This page should be unlocked. All of Bush's good (and bad) deeds will not be known to the world until this page is unlocked. The point of our site here is to inform the people, and without people interacting and adding information, Conservapedia will die out. People will go elsewhere to a more democratic environment, and that is not good for this site.

That's just fine. The Liberals can go to Communistpedia, and the people who want a more REPUBLICAN Wiki can come here! --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The liberals would probably be far more intelligent than the people that frequent this site and go to wikipedia [[User:You're wrong|You're wrong]] 15:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::communists can go to http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd rather Communism if Fascism were the other choice. If you really need to think you're always right to sleep at night, then be my guest my lil' Yank friend.

Shouldn't the first sentence read Name, birth date, political party, etc. and then say only President of the United States? After all, it's not like there is a Democratic President. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

If they didn't know bush was republican we don't want them on the site.

::I think by "democratic," the above poster (who failed to sign his/her comment) was referring to the political idea of democracy rather than the American political party, [[User:Ballon|Ballon]]. And let's try not to deride each other with pejoratives like "commie" and "fascist." Anyway, I agree that this page needs to be watched closely. It is an obvious location for vandalism. However, very sensible changes (exempli gratia: moving references of George Bush's religious values to a section other than "Foreign Policy") have been suggested on this page, and they seem to have been largely ignored. This article is not passable in its current state. The sysops must either unlock the page or at the very least make changes that we agree upon on this talk page.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush? (Could we maybe print the photo as a thumbnail, and link to the large photo?)

I believe the photo is one of Prince Harry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK, in compliance with the American notion that leaders such as George Washington and the sons of prominent and wealthy people should be involved in and at risk from armed conflict for their country in equal measure to the legions of the poor they send to do their work for them.

==Lacking Substance==
Conservapedia will go absolutely nowhere if its alternative viewpoints from wikipedia consist purerly in pejorative adjectives and vague speculative references. Disprove alternative opinions with facts, not derogatory adjectives and slanted phrases. I would provide examples, but they are more than clear and numerous.

This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry, I just think that conservapedia needs a credible entry for GWB to be taken seriously. Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush Wikipedia's entry].

As a starting point, how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media; Major (and minor) legislative pushes, both successful and not. Who were his good conservative judicial appointments? --[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Nation building ==

It's interesting that Bush's stated opposition to nation building isn't modified to show that he has been involved in exactly that in both Afghanistan & Iraq for over half his time in office.

I'd argue he hasn't done much nation-building in either of those places. :(
It is weird, though--having a site for Conservative politics and having such dinky articles about President Bush and Iraq is like having a wiki about oceanography and not mentioning water. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 14:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I am concerned that the entry reads as if it were written by a gushing fan instead of one who spent significant time researching the President. If the point of conservapedia is to become a credible resource intellectually honest about its bias, we must demand these entries be written at the highest standard possible. This is gossipy drivel; the libs are bound to cackle over it. }-(

== Economy ==

Since when is Exxon Mobile the bellwether of the US economy?

:Whoever wrote that is probably a Liberal grousing about the fact that Bush has made his corporate benefactors a great deal richer by strip-mining the American economy. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Paul O'Niell (the man who rescued Alcoa) tried to talk economic sense to Bush. Good advice fell on deaf ears. Then Cheney arranged his dismissal.

I've just visited the Yahoo! article linked to by reference 7, and it says nothing about unemployment being at an all-time low in March, 2007. In fact, the article's assessment of the economy is quite bleak.

Regarding “the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD” it should be noted that the source that is cited states the opposite. The stock market hit it’s highest in January 2000, before GWB took office.

Per the article quoted: “Oct. 9, 2002, the Dow Jones industrial average, battered by the worst stock market meltdown since the 1929 crash, hit bottom. It closed 4,437 points below its January 2000 all-time high”.

The major blow to the stock market took place in 2002, about 20 months after Bush took office. It should be noted that this took place exactly one week after Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Investors claimed this as a reason for the drop in the stock market.

Such frequently found mistakes underlines why Conservapedia is more propaganda than an online encyclopedia and should never be used as a source of information. The information is at best one sided, and more frequently, blantently false. The truth does not have a conservative or liberal slant. There seems to be a trend, however, in the last 12 or so years of American political media to baselessly proclaim an extream slant in media. Just because the reader does not like the truth does not mean that the carrier is slanted.
Artical

:"As we all know, the facts have an anti-Bush agenda." -- Steven Colbert. (Or, to be more accurate, it looks like Bush has an anti-facts agenda. :( --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Skull and Bones Club ==

MountainDew, why did you take that part out? It's a matter of public record (and any number of jokes) that Bush and Kerry are in the same club.

The guy who put that in there was a known vandal, so I was just reversing all his edits at once. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Locked Page ==

Should we really lock a page with so many typos? [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 09:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can understand why the page is locked, obviously people will target Bush, but the page needs LOTS of improvement, not just typos, but the Economy section is laughable.

: Indeed. No mention of the 8 trillion (is it 9 now) debt? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 20:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Debt only matters if you ever intend to pay it off. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:29, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Economy ==

''Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well [5]. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth" currently.[6] Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.[7] Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.[8]''

The information in this section appears to have either been written by a liberal who was interested in subtly undermining the informative authority of this particular entry (and possibly Conservapedia in general), or by someone who is perhaps good-intentioned but very badly informed.

First of all, using Exxon-Mobil and executive salary increases as an indication of how much Bush has done for the economy is actually quite bad press for him. The majority of Americans are not voting to line the pockets of the people at the very top. They prefer to have their own pockets lined, even if it is just in small ways, like in tax cuts for the middle class. Suggesting that Bush has done good for our economy as evidenced by the economic boon of the elite would seem to give credit to Bush's detractors who have accused him of being concerned only with his "oil buddies" and largest contributors. Let's not add more wood to that fire, please. That's how we lost the mid-terms - shooting ourselves in the foot.

Second point, please, whoever has write permissions, clean up the spelling errors at the very least (Exxon-Mobile, signle - in this section)

Third, someone else cited the error in referencing January 2000 as the lowest point of the stock market. In addition to their points (including the quote from the article that was supposedly used as reference for that inaccurate "fact"), I think it's important to clarify that while the market has never dropped as low as it did following the crash of 1929, the *percentage* drop could again be as great as it was in 1929. In 1929 the percentage drop was 23%. In 1987, the crash of October caused a dip of 22.7%. The actual numbers of 1929 were in the 200-400 range, whereas the Dow Jones is over 12,000 right now. If, in the modern era, the DJIA ever dropped as low as it did in 1929, i.e., down ot the 200-400 range, then we may as well prepare for Armageddon, because the state of the world would probably be *that* bad.

Fourth, is it necessary to place A.D. after every year, even when it is obvious that the referenced year is In the Year of Our Lord (i.e. Anno Domini)? It seems unnecessary, and certainly cumbersome to have A.D. following years that are obviously referring to U.S. political events. Our conservative audience is not so dumb as to be confused about whether the Clinton administration of the year 2000 is in reference to 2000 years before or 2000 years after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mostly I agree that we should not be concerned about the stereotypes our liberal brothers and sisters have placed upon us, but when possible for us to avoid looking stupid and playing into the stereotypes the liberals have assigned to us, I think we ought do so.

Fifth, the unemployment rate is dropping for March 2007, and this is wonderful and it speaks well of Bush's handling of the economy. It is not the lowest rate of all time, however. I don't feel compelled to provide sources here, because this information is readily available in under 2 minutes of searching for "U.S." and "unemployment rate" on any search engine of your choosing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, can tell you that the lowest unemployment rate of the last 60 years was in 1953 at just under 3%. It's an easy fact to check, and a ridiculous error to lock into an entry about our President. There are true pieces of information about President Bush that make him worthy of admiration. There is no need to attempt to bolster his image with false information.

And finally, let's please be honest about the minimum wage situation. The decision to raise the minimum wage is controversial among conservatives, and I am having difficulty finding a reliable source that suggests Bush supports, in isolation, the idea of raising the minimum wage (i.e. without tax-cuts for small-businesses also tacked on as a proviso). In terms of economic growth, raising the minimum wage may not be helpful, and everything I have read about President Bush seems to indicate that he knows that. So any suggestion that his personal opinion is that the minimum wage should be raised is questionable. Aside from his personal opinion, in his professional capacity, he most certainly hasn't been placed in a position of "working with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a livable level." The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 has passed in both the House and the Senate, but it has not yet been presented to our President to be signed into law, because it is pending committee review. Additionally, crediting Bush with "working with Democrats" on this is erroneous. Bush has reached across partisan lines on many occasions, but this particular bill was brought on entirely by Democratic feather-ruffling during their "First 100-Hours" campaign. It was an attempt by the Dems to make a garish display of their new "authority," having gained the majority in Congress.

:For starters, what powers do the executive branch have over economics? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::My personal political philosophies aside, I completely agree that Exxon-Mobile is probably the worst company that could have been chosen to show support for Bush's economic policies. This is an encyclopedia for conservatives, but if it's going to stand up to the criticisms of the liberal community and not be a major source of embarrassment for conservatives as a whole, it must hold itself to a higher level of political awareness. Whether one believes Exxon-Mobile's booming business is proof the economy is in great shape or not, the majority of those who read this (including conservatives) will fall out of their chairs when they read that. I guarantee you, liberal citizens all across America will copy and paste the paragraph into their blogs for their readers to laugh at.

::This is probably the most important article on conservapedia. It HAS to be beyond reproof. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: When is this going to be fixed? The "lowest unemployment rate in history" is not true, it was far lower in the 60s, and lower during the later years of the Clinton administrator. The claim isn't even supported by the reference, which claims "the lowest in five years", which I suppose is true enough. Concise and fact based indeed. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 16:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ridicolous claim ==

"He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region."

Eh, ok? Source? A silly attempt to try to create some kind of sympathy for the man. It's like saying "Jesus was very kind." in his entry. It has got nothing to do with facts and people should be given facts on this site and then determine for themselves if Jesus was kind and if GWB is working tirelessly.

:Agreed. Authors establish bias effectively by utilizing fact selectivity and through awareness of the perspective from which those facts are related. Ineffective authors establish bias by simply writing their opinions. An openly biased article is not the same thing as an opinion column. An encyclopedia does not need to allow itself to be tainted with opinions in order to be biased. This is supported by conservapedia itself in its article "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia." (Wikipedia, however biased it may or may not be, never allows anything close to the candid opinions of its editors to pollute articles.)
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:29, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Hard Work" ==

George W Bush has never done a day's hard work in his lifetime.

Oh wait, he was having trouble reading his children's book when he heard about 9/11. Dang, forgot about that.

:Sarcasm and exaggeration are the didactic devices of idiots.
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ridicolous Article ==

This whole article is a joke, right? How can you put this out as fact when it has been debunked so many times?

==Better Picture==
[[Image:Busio.jpeg|thumb|right]]

::I agree, that is a much better picture. It's the same one used on wikipedia, but it's public domain. I'd use it, but get a higher resolution copy of the image at http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsPhoto/2003-02/030114-O-0000D-001.jpg
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
This article does not just neglect important information, but also gives incorrect facts. Al Gore won the popular vote in the 200 election. Also, this I laugh out loud that people are actually believing this conservopedia crap.

== Requested edits ==

* The article needs to have <tt style="background-color:#bfb"><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}</nowiki></tt> added just above the categories at the bottom, so its category sortkey is set properly. Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 17:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Military Commanders]]</nowiki>
:He is after all our [[Commander in Chief]] leading the hugely successful war against [[terrorism]] in [[Iraq]] and elswhere.
::"Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." (Isaiah 55:4)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 10:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"Hugely successful?" I missed the announcement that they'd caught Osama Bin Laden. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Poor addition to a poor article ==

The line, "Many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list" should be quickly deleted from this article. I know wikipedia doesn't allow such B.S. qualifiers as "many people feel," and neither should conservapedia if it's going to be taken seriously. Just state that he's a Christian. How profound his Christian-ness is is both irrelevant and unquantifiable.

At least move it out of the "Foreign Policy" section of the article.

--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with the first paragraph by Mechrobioticon, but I do agree with the second paragraph. I think that faith statement should be moved from the "Foreign Policy" section to a new "Faith" section. There is tons of material from the book ''God and George W. Bush''. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 02:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::OK, maybe requesting that the reference be completely omitted is a little harsh to ask of a conservative encyclopedia, but I still stand by my statement that it needs to be drastically reworded. "Many people feel" is simply a phrase that should never be used in scholarly writing. It's an obvious euphemism for "I feel," and a bad attempt to cover up personal bias. It makes the article appear very amateurish and will become a point of ridicule for knowledgeable readers.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who cares how 'sincere' he is? [[Marshall Applewhite]] was 'sincere', but that didn't stop him from being lethally deluded. Or are we hoping the [[Great Pumpkin]] will visit Bush this Halloween? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree that how "profound" or "sincere" one's faith in something is is a poor indicator of one's character (not to mention highly arbitrary and impossible to confirm), but this isn't my encyclopedia. It's conservapedia. The ideas of the secular humanist must yield to the consensus of the conservative majority. I think that even bearing this fact, however, that there is a good case to be made for the removal of the sentences in question on the basis that they are, in fact, an opinion that can't be indisputably confirmed. But again, that's not my place to decide, and if the conservative editors and sysops of conservapedia say "it stays," then it stays. Secularists should always remember that we are here to advise and help, not to ridicule and lampoon.
::::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 16:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== No information ==

There's no information about how GWB is being named the Worst President in History [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history] by alot of people, as well as having some of the lowest approval ratings ever.[http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm][http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml] And lack of information about major events in his presidency. Such as Katarina, September 11th and stuff like that.

==No Information==
Period. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, this is more like the bio somebody writes for the program to their high school musical. Could it be more bland? Ish. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing about his childhood, his college, or his time as Texas governor. And there never will be. Conservapedia doesn't trust their editors to write about this icon. (They might mention, for instance, his drunk driving arrest or allegations of cocaine use). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Someone tell me when this article is fixed ==

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that this article is hopeless. It's not my opinion that George W. Bush's "sincere and profound faith in God" doesn't belong in the foreign policy section of this article. It's a demonstrable fact. Someone tell me what qualifies his religion as a formal written policy by which America's interactions with other countries are deliberated, and I will shut up. The addition is also poorly written, vague, unscholarly, conjectural, impossible to confirm, and dripping with bias and ethnocentrism, but I'll ignore that. Just move it. Please just move it. If this ever happens, please email me at happyhealey@gmail.com, and will resume contributing to Conservapedia. It's ludicrous for a wiki project to be unable to correct its own typographical errors. It's been a month. A whole month. If this were Wikipedia it would have been corrected in less than five minutes. This is, without exaggeration, pitiful.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, at least you changed the picture. Good to know the article isn't completely stagnant.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== How can I edit this article? ==

There are some spelling mistakes (Exxon Mobil not Exxon Mobile) and grammar that need correcting but I can't get on to fix it. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 11:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Could someone add "Category:Christian warriors" which I created specifically for Dubya?[[User:Muschifresser|Muschifresser]] 08:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Protected articles ==

Protected articles infringe on the right to free speech. I am greatly opposed to this policy. Bush happens to be one of my favorite people and you are depriving the fact that I can't contribute to this article is appalling. I know you are worried about vandals, but you are just punishing the innocent. The world is being deprived of my great knowledge, these are sad times.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Eavesdropping program ==

When it becomes possible to edit this article again, something should be added about the NSA eavesdropping program. As today's New York Times indicates, this program is extremely controversial even among conservatives and almost led to the resignations of Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller.--[[User:Amyz]] 10:04, May 16, 2007 (EDT)

== This is one sad page... ==

....And since it's locked, only the syspos (who have enough to do as it is) can DO anything with it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 02:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

*I quite agree, Gulik3. Me, for instance, I have been reading your many posts, all seeming to be unhappy ones. I hope you will straighten us out with good, solid examples of article production so that we may learn from you! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's be a good trick on my part, seeing how everything worth editing is locked. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::There actually is a real simple way around that: try, for the first time in known history, to actually write an article according to WP's NPOV. It would actually work here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Wikipedia's''' NPOV? The onbe that's "Six times more Liberal than America"? That NPOV? I can try... --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:George W. Bush

2007-05-22T03:53:44Z

Gulik3: /* This is one sad page... */

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-22T03:51:26Z

Gulik3: /* AEI and Exxon-Mobil */

{{Protected|TK}}

== Editing This Page ==

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

== Biased Line ==

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

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

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

(that he has problems trying to give away)

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

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

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

== Points ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== The whole article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Al Gore Header ==

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

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

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

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

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

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

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

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

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

== Unlocking ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Liberal bias==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Celsius ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Political bias==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I removed this uncited statement:

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

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

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

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

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

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

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

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

== Image ==

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

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

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

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

== " removing liberalness" ==

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

== How about these changes? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Neptune ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

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

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

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

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

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

==AGW==

Cut from article:

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

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

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

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

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

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

==Liberal Falsehood==

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

== Hockey Stick ==

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

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Oh, I'll bet he's sincere. Nothing produces true sincerity like a regular paycheck. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::The wording that Jaques keeps deleting was previously approved by sysop Phillip J Rayment. These deletions smack of vandalism are against the CP commandments. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-22T03:50:32Z

Gulik3: /* AEI and Exxon-Mobil */

{{Protected|TK}}

== Editing This Page ==

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

== Biased Line ==

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

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

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

(that he has problems trying to give away)

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

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

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

== Points ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== The whole article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Al Gore Header ==

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

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

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

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

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

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

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

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

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

== Unlocking ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Liberal bias==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Celsius ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Political bias==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I removed this uncited statement:

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

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

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

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

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

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

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

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

== Image ==

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

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

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

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

== " removing liberalness" ==

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

== How about these changes? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Neptune ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

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

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

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

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

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

==AGW==

Cut from article:

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

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

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

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

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

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

==Liberal Falsehood==

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

== Hockey Stick ==

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

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Oh, I'll bet he's sincere. Nothing produces true sincerity like a regular paycheck. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::The wording that Jaques keeps deleting was previously approved by sysop Phillip J Rayment. These deletions smack of vandalism are against the CP commandments. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Media bias

2007-05-22T03:39:37Z

Gulik3:

Media bias is distortion of news, commentary, non-fiction articles, textbooks, documentaries, speech codes and the like to favor one side's ideas and over another's (see [[partisan]]ship).

Most journalism schools in free countries address the issue of eliminating bias, although efforts are not always successful. Dictatorships which suppress [[freedom of the press]] are notorious for their media bias, particularly when all media are controlled directly by a [[one-party government]].

==Sources of bias==

#Deliberate propaganda: Presenting bias with the intention of benefiting the media establishment.
#Institutional bias: The reporters and editors of a media organisation may hold political views, which influence their reporting.
#Sensationalism: Media depends on viewers for financial support. Thus 'irrelevant' stories may receive attention disproportionate to their impact.
#Omission: The inverse of sensationalism, media may overlook important but boring stories.
#Simplification: Highly complicated subjects may be omitted or greatly simplified, to avoid alienating viewers or making them feel uneducated.
#Bias avoiding: Ironically, attempts to avoid bias may themselves induce bias. This is particularly evident in popular reporting of scientific news. If the vast majority of scientists in a field support one position, and a minority support an opposing position, media may feel obliged to give equal air time to both sides - thus introducing a bias towards the minority position.
#Political correctness or sensitivity: Fearful of appearing racist or discriminatory, media may avoid any stories which reflect negatively on a ethnic, social or religious group, especially if the group is a minority.
#Audience bias: Readers or viewers tent to read news sources with which they agree. Thus, media must reinforce the existing views of their audience, or risk losing them. This source of bias can also reinforce the effect of a moral panic.

==Notes==

* Christian groups accuse BBC drama of inciting anti-Christian bias <ref>http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013849.php</ref>

* Canadian Jewish Authors Castigate Anti-Christian Media Bias <ref>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05053005.html </ref>

* European Media and Anti-Israel Bias, A British journalist in Israel, Fatah leader caught by an Israeli army camera saying, "Don't start the stoning yet" <ref>http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/mediaobjectivity/European_Media_and_Anti-Israel_Bias.asp</ref>

* Recognizing Bias in Middle East Reporting: Rules for Reporters. What is media bias and why is it practiced against Israel? The Media's Anti-Israel Bias <ref>http://www.tampabayprimer.org/index.cfm?action=leftNav&drill=antiIsrael</ref>

* Anti-Israel Bias – An Endless Battle, trying to counter the anti-Israel bias in the media is an increasingly challenging proposition. <ref>http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/israel/060904a.aspx</ref>

* Does the Media's anti-Israel bias matter? <ref>http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/5294.htm</ref>

* Fighting hate & bias <ref>http://geocities.com/fightinghate</ref>

* Addressing Anti Israel Media Bias · European Media and Anti-Israel Bias <ref>http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_media_anti_israel_bias.php</ref>

* The day when the media will not be anti-Israel biased <ref>http://haveitclearly.blogspot.com/2007/03/when-media-is-not-anti-israel-biased.html</ref>

* Tom Gross on New York Times & Israel on National Review Online <ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gross031403.asp</ref>

* French Media Bias Against Israel Blamed for Anti-Semitic Violence <ref>http://www.crosswalk.com/1313954/</ref>

* WorldNetDaily: Liberal bias against Christians? Not a chance! <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34045</ref>

==External links==

*[http://www.aim.org/index Accuracy in Media] (AIM) non-profit, grassroots citizens watchdog <ref>http://www.aim.org/index</ref>
*[[CAMERA]] Dedicated for accuracy in reporting on the middle east <ref>http://camera.org</ref>
*[[ChronWatch]] A noted media watchdog and conservative news organization, with a mission to provide honest, alternative views to the increasing liberal-bias <ref>http://www.chronwatch-america.com/</ref>.
*[http://www.fair.org/index.php Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting] (FAIR) A media watchdog organization.<ref>http://www.fair.org/index.php</ref>
*[[HonestReporting]] A fast-action website that monitors Mideast media bias, <ref>http://www.honestreporting.com/</ref>
*[[MediaResearch]] (MRC) A leading media watchdog<ref>http://www.mediaresearch.org/welcome.asp</ref>
*[[NewsBusters]] A blog dedicated to "Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias" <ref>http://newsbusters.org/</ref>
*[[Take a pen]] Encourages fighting it <ref>http://take-a-pen.org</ref>.
* [http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/handouts/broadcast_news/bw_bias_in_the_news.cfm How to detect bias in the news]
*[[Politmus]] a crowdsourced site that allows members to rate and comment on examples of media bias they encounter<ref>http://www.politmus.com</ref>

== References ==

<references />

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-22T03:31:38Z

Gulik3:

{{Protected|TK}}

== Editing This Page ==

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

== Biased Line ==

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

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

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

(that he has problems trying to give away)

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

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

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

== Points ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== The whole article ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Al Gore Header ==

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

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

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

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

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

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

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

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

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

== Unlocking ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Liberal bias==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Celsius ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Political bias==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I removed this uncited statement:

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

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

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

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

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

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

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

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

== Image ==

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

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

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

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

== " removing liberalness" ==

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

== How about these changes? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Neptune ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

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

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

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

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

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

==AGW==

Cut from article:

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

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

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

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

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

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

==Liberal Falsehood==

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

== Hockey Stick ==

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

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

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

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

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

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

:::::By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-22T03:31:06Z

Gulik3: /* AEI and Exxon-Mobil */

{{Protected|TK}}

== Editing This Page ==

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

== Biased Line ==

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

Whoever said this you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. source that please!

Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(that he has problems trying to give away)

See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I edited in a section called 'Evidence' that was solidly backed up with references to reputable scientific sites. I see they've been reverted for 'Liberal bias'. What's 'Liberal bias' about facts about glacier recession and sea level rise? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:10, 23 March 2007

The article currently says "The theory enjoys wide political support, but many climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." This makes it sound as if there is an even balance between the number of climatologists and meteorologists who agree and disagree with the theory. This is inaccurate. The sentence should read "a minority of climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." I thought we were all about accuracy? The following sentence about 'consensus' is negated by the references to two out of that small minority of climatologists and meteorologists who disagree. By all means their names and views should be left in, to represent their disagreement, but their weight in the scale of scientific opinion should not be over-represented, and it should be balanced by reference to the names of proponents of the theory. I would be happy to make these changes, but the page is locked. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

=== Point 1 ===
"Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical." -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! "Very widely accepted"?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first link says "Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.". It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and "ex-liberal" discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the "ex-liberal" says: "MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well" (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning "overwhelming scientific evidence" but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is "very widely accepted" by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Point 4 ===
I think this is wrong. "Measures to combat global warming/climate change" are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a "fix it yourself" policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==
The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]
: Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Profit Motive ==
While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the citations needed in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Source #16 ==
How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== The whole article ==

The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?
: Global warming has become a new religion with Al Gore as the Pope of global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming "religion" similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled "religions" or "agendas," etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.

==Did you know...==
Does anyone here know that the polar ice caps have been shrinking considerably during the past three years? Now what on Mars could be doing that?

Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: Either it is a natural cycle on Mars, or solar activity increased and is generating more heat. If the later, it disproves pro-global warming scientists. Unless pro-global warming scientists want to claim that Martians are polluting CO2 on Mars to cause global warming, in which there is no evidence of Martians. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It doesn't 'disprove' pro-global warming scientists. It just factors in increased solar activity as another aspect of global warming and says nothing about anthropogenic aspects. Scientists generally believe that solar forcing, as it's called, is in the neighbourhood of one tenth of the total contribution to the heating of the atmosphere. Even this skeptic is citing solar forcing as no more than one third to two thirds contribution, and feels that anthropogenic contributions will be more important over the next century. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar . What are your figures for the extent of polar ice cap recession on Mars compared to the extent of polar ice cap recession on Earth? Take into account too the very different atmospheric conditions prevailing on Mars. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]]1:15, 24 March 2007

== Al Gore is no expert and no saint ==
These lines were removed, but they paint a picture of Al Gore:
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm
Al Gore is no scientist, and he didn't do anything to halt global warming while in office. I think he does a lot of credibility damage to global warming because of these things. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==
Dang, this article is really biased. People need to realise that Earth is changing, and it is being caused by humans. It is sad to see how people are so disrespectful to the work of God. I think that destroying everything great that the Lord has made is a terrible sin and this website should recognise the harm that they are doing to this great gift that God has given us.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 19:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*I believe there is plenty of evidence, and scientists, who do not adopt the panic-mode of Gore and others. Many believe it is a natural occurrence, perhaps hastened by fossil fuel consumption, but nevertheless something that has occurred hundreds of times, in the life of the planet. It is your job, everyone, as contributors and posters here, to edit the page to strike some balance, rather than dismiss opposing thought as morons, and ignore what others say. ''If this cannot be done, I will lock the page''. I hate to do that, because supposedly adults, thinking people, should be able to arrive at a meaningful compromise. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Lots of things are "perfectly natural".... like dying of [[cholera]] at age 28. We do our best to stop that from happening, too. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The way we stopped cholera is by avoiding wishful thinking and carrying out careful experiments. There's a fascinating detective story about how the first researcher proved that it was contaminated water (from a single pump?) that was causing a cholera epidemic in London. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::On the other hand, if we render the planet TOTALLY unlivable, Jesus will HAVE to return and save us all!

::No need to lock the page. I know a lot about what both sides are saying and can perhaps help to craft a balanced article. (I am the original author of [[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks Ed!! Thats the spirit! I posted some links below, so some can take a look, possibly add their own, of actual scientists who just hate all the alarmism. Feel free to IM me anytime. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:*'''Sorry, some felt the need for a fight tonight, I guess, and kept reverting. Just let me know, I will unlock it once the children have stopped their tantrums.''' --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Facts & Links To Check Out... ==

Whose Ox Is Gored? The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804]

The Tempest
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html]

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html]

An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away: [http://newsbusters.org/node/9262]

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

<blockquote>
"...But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

'''Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.'''

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

'''While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”'''

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

'''It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.'''

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

'''“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”'''

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

'''“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”''' </blockquote>
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

== Al Gore Header ==

*Is it really necessary? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

There are hundreds of people, some with star power and knowledge exceeding Al Gore, on both sides of this issue. Why is Al Gore given somemuch time and space in this catagory?

"So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming""

quoted from above. By whose notion is he the leading expert on Global Warming? Where is reference to Hansen, Broecker, Schmidt,Thompson et al, you know people who actually study this stuff for a living? Why focus on Gore? ''---The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Third Day''

:The Democratic Party is largely Liberal, and global warming is a big issue for liberals. Al Gore is one of the most popular Democrats, and he has a book out called "Earth in the Balance". Who else *but* Gore? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
*Were you speaking to me? If so, I am wondering why the info under the Gore heading couldn't be better placed in the body of the article rather than his own heading..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

::Conservatives have [[Richard Lindzen]], who is an actual scientist who makes sense and doesn't fudge the numbers. Liberals only have <s>[[Jim Hansen]],</s> who will never live down his "scary scenarios" remark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::*Oops, I meant [[Stephen Schneider]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I just added a line to the Gore header, to balance it some. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

:Then go in the history and find the source, and put it back in. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
*Exactly! And be sure to let either Hoji or me know if another revert war starts. ;-) ---~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocking ==

This article is far from complete. When will it be unlocked so we can add information about scientific data showing natural causes for warming, explanation of the solar flux theory, carbon dioxide tracking temps, cosmoclimatology, paleoclimatology, etc. As it stands it makes it look like all we care about is the political side of things. This can't be true, can it? This unsigned comment was made by [[User:Third Day]]

*You are right. I suppose for now, if you would like to post the additions here, they can be pasted over. Or you can contact me, and I could open it up for you to edit. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously nothing was important enough to contact me about, or post here about. Makes me wonder why, upon locking a page, people want it open, for what? If they don't come back with a suggestion or contribution, what is the point? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I've been on the road, hence I did not respond. Some of us have lives outside of this site. I will put together a summary of additions I feel worthy and post here in the talk section. I do wonder if the whole Wiki concept is undermined if the additions need to be vetted by a select few. It may take years for the articles to settle into a reflection of community knowledge, but thats the point, right? Nobody goes to a wiki, any kind of wiki, for the absolute truth on anything. No wiki is a valid source in a peer reviewed paper or even a college paper. It is a way to get a sense of the state of knowledge in a community of users. Wikipedia suffers from the fact that the community of users is so broad as to produce everchanging articles. There are Wikis that restrict the user base to members of certain communities - like a company or agency or users of a particular software. But if Conservapedia wants to surviv and not be mocked it needs to open itself up to slings and arrows. If indeed, we conservatives really believe that our point of view will dominate, then we need not be afraid to open up to liberal edits - cause enough of us will respond in force, and in time will overwhelm. If we just lock down the articles will never evolve (pardon the word) into a compleat, trustworthy wikipedia. OK, I'm done ranting. Off my soap box now :). - Third Day

==Are there any Wikipedia editors here?==
An article on Scientific data withholding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_withholding] has been nominated for deletion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_data_withholding#.5B.5BScientific_data_withholding.5D.5D] If you are a Wikipedia editor, please read the article and vote. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 00:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong question to ask here. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to canvas for votes. You're doing the right thing in the wrong way. Next step is RFC and/or an email to Jimbo. You don't win this kind of battle by stooping to their level. Stay here and work on the climate articles, instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I just learned about "canvassing." I know Connelly is doing it because people are showing up to vote who have not read the article or the Talk page. Teach me the right way to handle this, Ed. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is off-topic, but since I brought it up I better finish it.

:This is the type of battle that it's okay to lose. When people see that the process was followed on one side, but ignored or misused on the other side, then sympathy is genereated for the correct side. Think Rosa Parks. Think [[sit-ins at lunch counters]]. And also think about contributing more here. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Using "Global Climate Change" is not kosher ===

This is a way for carbon alarmists to hedge their bets, and answer critics if there's a series of cold winters. In the 1970s they were ringing the Ice Age bell, now they've settled on warming so they can dial back the economies of the West (while ignoring China). [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The [[global warming controversy]] has replaced the [[Vietnam War]] and [[nuclear power]] as the big-ticket leftist issue. And now that Communism has faded from Europe and is morphing in [[China]], what are all the socialists going to get into but the [[Environment]]? It's the perfect materialistic cause, and there's plenty of money to go around. The US government alone spends over a billion dollars a year on "research" and the United Nations issues assessments every few years (see [[IPCC]]). We all know how objective and fair minded the UN [[General Assembly]] has been on non-environmental issues such as [[human rights]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::note that nuclear power is actully the best canidate for clean, alternative energy; yet, most enviornmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace are vehemently opposed to it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This article is a completely unsourced diatribe. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== pictures ==
We need some pictures--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Admin: Can we use wikipedia.org pictures? --[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:yes if it's public domain.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 04:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

I don't think I would be too wrong in saying that conservative young-earth creationism and skepticism over human-induced climate change usually go together, not all the time of course, but on this site they seem to. Whats strange however, is that geological evidence is cited uncritically in this article in order to discredit human-induced climate change:

:"Global warming is a natural periodic increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and it has always been followed by period of global cooling ... According to geologists, the Earth has experience numerous ice ages."

Even though this is incompatible with young earth creationism. To quote from Conservapedia's own [[Ice Age]] entry:
:"Mainstream geologists and Young Earth creationists are at odds over whether any ice ages have actually occurred."

A clear demonstration, in my opinion, of the type of muddled thinking that conservative fundamentalist ideology generates. (These inconsistent portions of the articles were even added by the same author: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=124708 Global warming edit history] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ice_Age&diff=prev&oldid=113042 Ice Age edit history].)
[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's more a typical demonstration of jumping to conclunions on the part of liberals. I'm the author of the current [[global warming]] article, and I'm not a YEC. :P --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I would also point out that I am the main author of the [[Theory of evolution]] article which is definitely critical the macroevolutionary position, and I am undecided regarding the global warming issue in regards to its possible causes and its possible effects. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::You still add criticism of mainstream geology when it suits you, and uncritically marshal it in your support when it doesn't. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 16:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Orgone has a very good point. A YEC should have no issue with global warming since the earth has not been around long enough to go through these climate changes that geologists say we have gone through.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

'''See also:''' [[Nineteen_Eighty-Four | Doublethink]]

==Liberal bias==

I would like to ask anyone who disagrees with top U.S. climate experts - Harvard and MIT scientists and U.S. state climatologists - to go slowly and carefully when editing this article.

My dad majored in physics, and I got top grades in math and physics. There is a lot of liberal misinformation about [[Anthropogenic global warming]] tied to the UN-promoted [[Kyoto Protocol]], the global warming treaty which seeks a "[[carbon tax]]" and other forms of [[emissions trading]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well ''my'' dad is bigger than ''your'' dad so ''there''! (Childish of me i know, but i couldn't resist it!) :-p [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Java, I agree with some of your edits, but I think that the first paragraph should stick to undisputed facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:I aded references. [[User:Java|Java]] 17:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all references tell the truth. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Is this a joke? I referenced from Nature, PNAS, Science and GISS. Why should the current references tell the truth? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::::for 1 thing anything talking about "the last 420,000 years" is wrong. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am a little vexed. Do you want to put me on? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

*Java, YEC's, since they don't believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years or so, won't accept those figures. RSchlafly, I have once again protected this article, so stop this kind of constant arguing. Please keep an eye peeled for our more Liberal Sysop's opening it up. Thanks! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::As I pointed out above in '''Ideological Inconsistencies''', if this site is to view everything through the distorting mirror that is YEC, why do the references to [[Ice Age]]s stay in the introductory section? [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Um, please freeze on a version with facts ==

Not to rock the boat or anything, but the current un-editable version of the Global Warming page has essentially no scientific merit. Could someone please revert to a version with some actual discussion of global warming. I'm happy to write it. It involves sunshine, blackbody radiation, the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide, and an explanation of climate feedbacks. -Ifixthings

: I agree. Describe global warming accurately first. Get into the politics later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*Cool, Roger. Open it, edit it, do whatever. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, I unlocked it. Please keep science and politics separate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I love the nice accurate new version. I give it five minutes before it's reverted.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
**Yeah, it didn't last long, which is stupid because it was much more correct.[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 17:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh Ed Poor... You make me an sad panda, those corrections you made are quite horrible. The version by Ifixthings was a good one, and the missing citations could be corrected quite fast, already found several good and reliable sources. Wikintrepeter at least fixed the most outrageous claims. But still some are left like: "However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject" Still at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries support the claim and only one to my knowledge opposes it, that being American Association of Petroleum Geologists. And to be honest, them opposing it isn't really surprising. Im seriously baffled how one can deny the scientific consensus here, and seeing what i claim to be intellectual dishonesty makes me really sad, as this is something which will directly affect our lives and if not ours then at least our children's. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Both of the APA's voted that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Does that make it true? Are you quite sure their votes were not politically motivated?

:It doesn't matter how many '''groups''' take a stand on a matter of science. It only matters what the science actually is. But if you care about polls, what percent of climate scientists support or oppose the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] theory? If you know, do speak up. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, at minimum it matters what groups take a position since you claimed that "the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject". Even if that weren't the issue at hand, the number of people who are experts on an issue and have come to a conclusion a certain way about the issue does matter. While it doesn't alter who is correct in an absolute sense it does alter the estimated probability of an opinion being correct for someone who is trying to get some idea what to do and who does not have the time or resources to go through all the data that the experts do. That logic applies to any application of a scientific endeavor. For example there are still some geocentrists, the government when formulating policy does not need to worry about them. This is true for a politician whether or not that politician has bothered to understand what is wrong with geocentrism. Note that I'm not saying that global warming is equivalent to geocentrism but making the point that when evaluating claims on limited data or resources, the opinion of the vast majority matters. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::JoshuaZ allready gave so good answer that i have little to add to it. Im not sure if there has been done any exact polls on how many percentage of the experts on this area support or opposes anthropogenic global warming, but ill try to find one. Alltho i think that allready the number of supporting scientific societies and academies of science and the lack of opposing ones gives an quite good picture of the situation. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A trustworthy article should give scientific facts, don't you agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I really dont see where you are aiming at with this, as the link i just gave on the conversation bit below, shows that allready at year 2000 there where no studyes to be found that opposed the concencus, but offcourse there will allways be some "scientists" who disagree. if you are aiming for universal acceptance of an theory before it can be called an scientific fact, i must say we really dont have any. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

''The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years,'' YECs why don`t you delete this phrase and block the article? --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Joshua, the top experts say it's natural, and surveys of climatologists agree. What exactly is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: That's simply false. The UN report which you dislike was written by the top experts, who signed off on it. Again, the vast majority of the relevant scientific organizations have agreed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I've asked you twice for proof of this. I ask you here one last time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Sigh. Did you read what I wrote on your talk page or not? Almost every single author of the reports(and I listed a few as examples) is a respected scientist and there are about 40 authors to each report. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Found atleast [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 this] as an partial answer to the question here and above, alltho the report is already quite old and rapid progress has been made during few years, even at year 2000 this study didn't found '''any''' studies that disagreed with the consensus. That should already tell something. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: Hmm, interesting quote from that "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

A literature search by a [[Kyoto Protocol]] supporter is not the same as a study or a survey. It means nothing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Celsius ==

How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the [[Little Ice Age]] in 1850. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would prefer Kelvin. --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). [[User:Human|Human]] 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary "looks like". I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Political bias==

The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And ''Science'' might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's "not of interest to their readers". I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Um, what? Science isn't a "popular journal" but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No? ''This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.'' --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says "I agree with the IPCC about (anything)." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.
:And a recent examples:
Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 [[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666

== Independent scientists such as ... [[Fred Singer]] ==

Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, well by "independent" I just meant "speaking for himself", "not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line". Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Like [[James Hansen]] - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/][http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183]
:::Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::False citation: #11 doesn't say he was told not to talk about global warming, it just says that official press releases would be scrutinized. #12 doesn't mention his ability to talk at all; in it Hansen accuses Bush of stifling evidence (but without giving any examples of this supposed stifling). #13 says "Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing" but doesn't give the wording of this supposed "threat" or even a summary of it.

:::This is typical of liberals: they make claims which have no evidence. The entire case on global warming consists of claims that "the world's top scientists agree" but they give no polls to support this "consensus" claim. They say that "models predict" but when the models are contradicted by observations they say that "models aren't predictions". They say it's carbon dioxide, but CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when there was cooling, and anyway the climate record of the last 400 million years show an 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change - CO2 '''follows''' temperature, rather than driving it.

:::They are politicizing science while running a well orchestrated PR campaign of calling the kettle black. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so...... ==

Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/what_happened_predictions.html][http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/failpred.html] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc).

Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.asp?pr=2178] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.

Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.
:*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
:Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation? ==

I removed this uncited statement:

"However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position."

Can anyone give a citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the "no proof" claim should be taken out.

:But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

One of the citations: [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This "study" has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/FORUM.pdf] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

:Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

This paragraph does not distinguish between "global warming", i.e., a rise in temperature and "the Global Warming theory", i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.

Also undefined is "the effects of Global Warming". What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism Edit==
I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's ok, no problem. I was just surprised when I looked and right after my edit it said 'removed vandalism'. ;-) I didn't catch it myself until I saw your change. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

"The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years" - not according to this wiki's article on [[Ice Age]]. You can't have it both ways, did they occur, and is the earth at least 2,000,000 years old, or did they not and is it not? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

........--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationary scientists]] believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf ''What about the Ice Age?''], ''The Creation Answers Book'', Chapter 16). I guess I was hoping for a clearer answer than "........", which I don't understand. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cite Leading Group of Climate Change Skeptics? ==

As the IPCC is included in the introduction to this entry, it's appropriate that the leading group of climate change skeptics be cited, instead of individual scientists. Does anybody know what the appropriate body to cite is? I'm aware of "The Friends of Science", but I believe they're exclusively Canadian. [[User:Dbarefoot|Dbarefoot]] 08:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

I posit that if we're going to lay out the groups on both side of the global warming debate, they ought to be qualified equally, or not at all. I don't think these qualifiers are appropriate in introductions--they belong in the particular entries about the individuals or groups.

As I've queried above, I think it makes sense to describe the leading group of climate change skeptics or doubters, as they seem a natural counterpoint to the IPCC. Citing individual scientists seems too anecdotal for an encyclopedia, which ought to seek to be conclusive.

== " removing liberalness" ==

Is now given as a reason to alter an article? Ironically, the rather few "non-liberal" qualifiers I have ever typed were all reverted. Maybe because a liberal is not allowed to say these things? Or perhaps, just because since I can't understand them, I can't push the POV appropriately? [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Look at the statement i removed. i removed it because it was unsourced. perhaps i should have said "removing unsourced statement"[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Remember, liberal sources don't count! --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== How about these changes? ==

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.[Citation Needed]

I was going to use -> http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806 <- this as a citation before the page got locked :)

....and also I must take issue with this statement. "The scenario most postulated is dust storms.[4]"

Dust storms are not the "most" postulated -- The sun's solar cycles are just as much of a plausable theory....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

:I have no problem with that change, and I'm the one who entered the original information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neptune ==

I just read today that global warming has been found to be occurring on Neptune. It matches the same pattern for the time period found upon Mars and earth. It may be safe to assume that is not due to human intervention. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Where did you see this? I'd be very interested in reading about this in more detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950. I hope this is enough information to 'dig' it up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Found it. The paper is interesting. The correlation found was positive but not statistically significant between the brightness of Neptune and the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, from my reading it looks like one might expect a significant correlation even if most of the recent warming on earth is anthropogenic (note that this isn't my area of expertise so that could be painfully wrong). It should be interesting to see where this goes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I take no personal position on the issue, but I do believe any information that could be meaningful to form a complete picture should be included. That Mars and Neptune are both heating up over the same time period as the earth, and in the case of Mars even the temperature amount is similar, is certainly notable. It seems to me there is too much of an effort to dismiss information that would appear to be at odds with the concept that global warming is caused by humans, and that is unfortunate. (Note: I don't count global warming on Pluto due to Pluto's strange orbit. It has too many oddities, from my point of view, to be put in the same category.) Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the header title before posting here, I hope I didn't step on any toes. The Header ''was'' '''Global Warming on other Planets''' Which I changed to '''Warming ''of'' other Planets'''. I did this to prevent confusion, though indeed the other planets are ''also'' globes but usually, (in my experience) "global" means the sum and totality of Earth. Feel free to change it back if'n you want. - [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the talk message, and no offense taken. I've found that articles that discuss other planets usually still use the term global warming. For instance it has been popular to talk about global warming on Venus over the last decade or so, and the term global warming is used. The source about global warming on Mars also used the words global warming and Mars in the title. For these reasons I felt it was appropriate to keep the header title with global warming. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have [[experiment]]al evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is it an error? No. It is correct as it is. "Belief" means to give assent to an idea. It does not mean, despite the way some atheistic types think of it, as accepting an idea without evidence or good reason.
:Is it the best way to word it? Maybe not, but I'm not happy with your suggestion either. If I remember, I'll have more of a think about it.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::How about "Secular scientists think"? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::To my mind, "believe" is the better word. "Think" to me indicates some doubt, whereas "believe" can be a very strong conviction. But not everybody sees it that way, so I'll agree to changing it to "think", and in fact I've just done that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*This article has taken on drastic changes, it is a diluted, semi-neutral piece. It needs to be overhauled without the Liberal bias, and the removed material from warming skeptics added back. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
What is wrong with semi-neutral??? Is it only good if it carries a right wing arch-conservative bent?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Britnme, it is not true that getting peer-reviewed work published is a guarantee that it is based on experimental evidence. It only means that no obvious errors were found, and that the editor thinks it will interest his readers.

:Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==AGW==

Cut from article:

:... contrasts with the effects predicted for [[anthropogenic global warming]].

What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

Hi Dan, I'd like to point out that it is possible for Creation Scientists to believe in global warming as well, but they would not attach a 2 million year period of ice ages. ICR, for instance, takes a neutral view on global warming believing so far that the case has not been made satisfactorily, but they are open to ongoing evidence that may steer their opinion one way or the other if more concrete information is found. But even if they did feel global warming has been shown to be caused by humans, they still would not believe the earth is 2 million years old. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, the age issue would apply only to Young Earth Creationists. I will freely admit that more creation scientists are global warming skeptics than other scientists, but I don't think we need to make the distinction here, especially because, as you said, groups like ICR take a neutral stance on it, so it's a separate issue. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::The edit was to a paragraph about ice ages, not about global warming itself. That's why it is appropriate to qualify it somehow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Falsehood==

The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term "liberal falsehood" to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hockey Stick ==

This seems like an inappropriate graph to me. The gray are the real values, but they've been averaged to get a blue line to smooth out large fluctuations. Highlighting the ups and downs of the gray would give a very different picture. Also, it only deals with the northern hemisphere, which makes the overall numbers incomplete for the 'global' part of global warming. (I realize the ice samples were only taken from the north pole, but we've got another pole that needs to be checked for balance if those figures are to be as meaningful as they are made to appear.) Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

The linked citation reads: ''AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. ExxonMobil gave AEI approximately $925,000 between 1998 and 2003.''

Jacques, why do you keep cutting out the part about the AEI trying to buy scientists? It's got a citation. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Clay mathematics institute also offer money rewards, do you think it's trying to buy scientists?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I won't have any idea until you put a link in there for a cite, so I can read it for myself. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Let me guess--you own stock in Exxon? Such defensiveness ill-becomes someone with no money in this fight. --23:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And you own stock in solar power companies.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have a cite with a very long list of opponents to the global warming theory who have been sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. This is relevant to support the statement that such large oil industry companies are leading opponents of the theory. The line about offering $10,000 can be omitted if it's felt to be irrelevant.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Please do--then at least I won't get banned for an 'edit war'. And Jacques, PLEASE post a list of scientists being bankrolled by the massive Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, once you get it together. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::well, your thinking seems to be: tax money = good, donation = evil. Private donation automatically corrupt people and tax money does not, and any scientist who accept private donation is an Evil Communist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::man what
::::::oooookay. Let me make sure I understand your 'logic' here. Basically, you're saying that all these scientists, both the goverment-funded and the Exxon-funded, are equally corrupt, and should be treated with exactly the same amount of credibility, the same way that 'researchers' for the [[Tobacco institute[[ were treated when they were the only doctors on Earth who failed to find a connection between smoking and lung diseases. Am I understanding your 'reasoning' here, so far? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-22T03:19:27Z

Gulik3: /* AEI and Exxon-Mobil */

{{Protected|TK}}

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Biased Line ==

"Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him"

Whoever said this you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. source that please!

Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(that he has problems trying to give away)

See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I edited in a section called 'Evidence' that was solidly backed up with references to reputable scientific sites. I see they've been reverted for 'Liberal bias'. What's 'Liberal bias' about facts about glacier recession and sea level rise? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:10, 23 March 2007

The article currently says "The theory enjoys wide political support, but many climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." This makes it sound as if there is an even balance between the number of climatologists and meteorologists who agree and disagree with the theory. This is inaccurate. The sentence should read "a minority of climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." I thought we were all about accuracy? The following sentence about 'consensus' is negated by the references to two out of that small minority of climatologists and meteorologists who disagree. By all means their names and views should be left in, to represent their disagreement, but their weight in the scale of scientific opinion should not be over-represented, and it should be balanced by reference to the names of proponents of the theory. I would be happy to make these changes, but the page is locked. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

=== Point 1 ===
"Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical." -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! "Very widely accepted"?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first link says "Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.". It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and "ex-liberal" discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the "ex-liberal" says: "MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well" (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning "overwhelming scientific evidence" but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is "very widely accepted" by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Point 4 ===
I think this is wrong. "Measures to combat global warming/climate change" are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a "fix it yourself" policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==
The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]
: Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Profit Motive ==
While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the citations needed in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Source #16 ==
How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== The whole article ==

The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?
: Global warming has become a new religion with Al Gore as the Pope of global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming "religion" similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled "religions" or "agendas," etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.

==Did you know...==
Does anyone here know that the polar ice caps have been shrinking considerably during the past three years? Now what on Mars could be doing that?

Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: Either it is a natural cycle on Mars, or solar activity increased and is generating more heat. If the later, it disproves pro-global warming scientists. Unless pro-global warming scientists want to claim that Martians are polluting CO2 on Mars to cause global warming, in which there is no evidence of Martians. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It doesn't 'disprove' pro-global warming scientists. It just factors in increased solar activity as another aspect of global warming and says nothing about anthropogenic aspects. Scientists generally believe that solar forcing, as it's called, is in the neighbourhood of one tenth of the total contribution to the heating of the atmosphere. Even this skeptic is citing solar forcing as no more than one third to two thirds contribution, and feels that anthropogenic contributions will be more important over the next century. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar . What are your figures for the extent of polar ice cap recession on Mars compared to the extent of polar ice cap recession on Earth? Take into account too the very different atmospheric conditions prevailing on Mars. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]]1:15, 24 March 2007

== Al Gore is no expert and no saint ==
These lines were removed, but they paint a picture of Al Gore:
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm
Al Gore is no scientist, and he didn't do anything to halt global warming while in office. I think he does a lot of credibility damage to global warming because of these things. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==
Dang, this article is really biased. People need to realise that Earth is changing, and it is being caused by humans. It is sad to see how people are so disrespectful to the work of God. I think that destroying everything great that the Lord has made is a terrible sin and this website should recognise the harm that they are doing to this great gift that God has given us.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 19:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*I believe there is plenty of evidence, and scientists, who do not adopt the panic-mode of Gore and others. Many believe it is a natural occurrence, perhaps hastened by fossil fuel consumption, but nevertheless something that has occurred hundreds of times, in the life of the planet. It is your job, everyone, as contributors and posters here, to edit the page to strike some balance, rather than dismiss opposing thought as morons, and ignore what others say. ''If this cannot be done, I will lock the page''. I hate to do that, because supposedly adults, thinking people, should be able to arrive at a meaningful compromise. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Lots of things are "perfectly natural".... like dying of [[cholera]] at age 28. We do our best to stop that from happening, too. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The way we stopped cholera is by avoiding wishful thinking and carrying out careful experiments. There's a fascinating detective story about how the first researcher proved that it was contaminated water (from a single pump?) that was causing a cholera epidemic in London. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::On the other hand, if we render the planet TOTALLY unlivable, Jesus will HAVE to return and save us all!

::No need to lock the page. I know a lot about what both sides are saying and can perhaps help to craft a balanced article. (I am the original author of [[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks Ed!! Thats the spirit! I posted some links below, so some can take a look, possibly add their own, of actual scientists who just hate all the alarmism. Feel free to IM me anytime. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:*'''Sorry, some felt the need for a fight tonight, I guess, and kept reverting. Just let me know, I will unlock it once the children have stopped their tantrums.''' --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Facts & Links To Check Out... ==

Whose Ox Is Gored? The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804]

The Tempest
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html]

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html]

An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away: [http://newsbusters.org/node/9262]

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

<blockquote>
"...But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

'''Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.'''

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

'''While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”'''

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

'''It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.'''

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

'''“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”'''

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

'''“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”''' </blockquote>
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

== Al Gore Header ==

*Is it really necessary? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

There are hundreds of people, some with star power and knowledge exceeding Al Gore, on both sides of this issue. Why is Al Gore given somemuch time and space in this catagory?

"So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming""

quoted from above. By whose notion is he the leading expert on Global Warming? Where is reference to Hansen, Broecker, Schmidt,Thompson et al, you know people who actually study this stuff for a living? Why focus on Gore? ''---The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Third Day''

:The Democratic Party is largely Liberal, and global warming is a big issue for liberals. Al Gore is one of the most popular Democrats, and he has a book out called "Earth in the Balance". Who else *but* Gore? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
*Were you speaking to me? If so, I am wondering why the info under the Gore heading couldn't be better placed in the body of the article rather than his own heading..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

::Conservatives have [[Richard Lindzen]], who is an actual scientist who makes sense and doesn't fudge the numbers. Liberals only have <s>[[Jim Hansen]],</s> who will never live down his "scary scenarios" remark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::*Oops, I meant [[Stephen Schneider]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I just added a line to the Gore header, to balance it some. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

:Then go in the history and find the source, and put it back in. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
*Exactly! And be sure to let either Hoji or me know if another revert war starts. ;-) ---~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocking ==

This article is far from complete. When will it be unlocked so we can add information about scientific data showing natural causes for warming, explanation of the solar flux theory, carbon dioxide tracking temps, cosmoclimatology, paleoclimatology, etc. As it stands it makes it look like all we care about is the political side of things. This can't be true, can it? This unsigned comment was made by [[User:Third Day]]

*You are right. I suppose for now, if you would like to post the additions here, they can be pasted over. Or you can contact me, and I could open it up for you to edit. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously nothing was important enough to contact me about, or post here about. Makes me wonder why, upon locking a page, people want it open, for what? If they don't come back with a suggestion or contribution, what is the point? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I've been on the road, hence I did not respond. Some of us have lives outside of this site. I will put together a summary of additions I feel worthy and post here in the talk section. I do wonder if the whole Wiki concept is undermined if the additions need to be vetted by a select few. It may take years for the articles to settle into a reflection of community knowledge, but thats the point, right? Nobody goes to a wiki, any kind of wiki, for the absolute truth on anything. No wiki is a valid source in a peer reviewed paper or even a college paper. It is a way to get a sense of the state of knowledge in a community of users. Wikipedia suffers from the fact that the community of users is so broad as to produce everchanging articles. There are Wikis that restrict the user base to members of certain communities - like a company or agency or users of a particular software. But if Conservapedia wants to surviv and not be mocked it needs to open itself up to slings and arrows. If indeed, we conservatives really believe that our point of view will dominate, then we need not be afraid to open up to liberal edits - cause enough of us will respond in force, and in time will overwhelm. If we just lock down the articles will never evolve (pardon the word) into a compleat, trustworthy wikipedia. OK, I'm done ranting. Off my soap box now :). - Third Day

==Are there any Wikipedia editors here?==
An article on Scientific data withholding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_withholding] has been nominated for deletion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_data_withholding#.5B.5BScientific_data_withholding.5D.5D] If you are a Wikipedia editor, please read the article and vote. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 00:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong question to ask here. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to canvas for votes. You're doing the right thing in the wrong way. Next step is RFC and/or an email to Jimbo. You don't win this kind of battle by stooping to their level. Stay here and work on the climate articles, instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I just learned about "canvassing." I know Connelly is doing it because people are showing up to vote who have not read the article or the Talk page. Teach me the right way to handle this, Ed. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is off-topic, but since I brought it up I better finish it.

:This is the type of battle that it's okay to lose. When people see that the process was followed on one side, but ignored or misused on the other side, then sympathy is genereated for the correct side. Think Rosa Parks. Think [[sit-ins at lunch counters]]. And also think about contributing more here. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Using "Global Climate Change" is not kosher ===

This is a way for carbon alarmists to hedge their bets, and answer critics if there's a series of cold winters. In the 1970s they were ringing the Ice Age bell, now they've settled on warming so they can dial back the economies of the West (while ignoring China). [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The [[global warming controversy]] has replaced the [[Vietnam War]] and [[nuclear power]] as the big-ticket leftist issue. And now that Communism has faded from Europe and is morphing in [[China]], what are all the socialists going to get into but the [[Environment]]? It's the perfect materialistic cause, and there's plenty of money to go around. The US government alone spends over a billion dollars a year on "research" and the United Nations issues assessments every few years (see [[IPCC]]). We all know how objective and fair minded the UN [[General Assembly]] has been on non-environmental issues such as [[human rights]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::note that nuclear power is actully the best canidate for clean, alternative energy; yet, most enviornmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace are vehemently opposed to it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This article is a completely unsourced diatribe. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== pictures ==
We need some pictures--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Admin: Can we use wikipedia.org pictures? --[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:yes if it's public domain.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 04:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

I don't think I would be too wrong in saying that conservative young-earth creationism and skepticism over human-induced climate change usually go together, not all the time of course, but on this site they seem to. Whats strange however, is that geological evidence is cited uncritically in this article in order to discredit human-induced climate change:

:"Global warming is a natural periodic increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and it has always been followed by period of global cooling ... According to geologists, the Earth has experience numerous ice ages."

Even though this is incompatible with young earth creationism. To quote from Conservapedia's own [[Ice Age]] entry:
:"Mainstream geologists and Young Earth creationists are at odds over whether any ice ages have actually occurred."

A clear demonstration, in my opinion, of the type of muddled thinking that conservative fundamentalist ideology generates. (These inconsistent portions of the articles were even added by the same author: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=124708 Global warming edit history] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ice_Age&diff=prev&oldid=113042 Ice Age edit history].)
[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's more a typical demonstration of jumping to conclunions on the part of liberals. I'm the author of the current [[global warming]] article, and I'm not a YEC. :P --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I would also point out that I am the main author of the [[Theory of evolution]] article which is definitely critical the macroevolutionary position, and I am undecided regarding the global warming issue in regards to its possible causes and its possible effects. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::You still add criticism of mainstream geology when it suits you, and uncritically marshal it in your support when it doesn't. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 16:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Orgone has a very good point. A YEC should have no issue with global warming since the earth has not been around long enough to go through these climate changes that geologists say we have gone through.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

'''See also:''' [[Nineteen_Eighty-Four | Doublethink]]

==Liberal bias==

I would like to ask anyone who disagrees with top U.S. climate experts - Harvard and MIT scientists and U.S. state climatologists - to go slowly and carefully when editing this article.

My dad majored in physics, and I got top grades in math and physics. There is a lot of liberal misinformation about [[Anthropogenic global warming]] tied to the UN-promoted [[Kyoto Protocol]], the global warming treaty which seeks a "[[carbon tax]]" and other forms of [[emissions trading]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well ''my'' dad is bigger than ''your'' dad so ''there''! (Childish of me i know, but i couldn't resist it!) :-p [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Java, I agree with some of your edits, but I think that the first paragraph should stick to undisputed facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:I aded references. [[User:Java|Java]] 17:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all references tell the truth. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Is this a joke? I referenced from Nature, PNAS, Science and GISS. Why should the current references tell the truth? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::::for 1 thing anything talking about "the last 420,000 years" is wrong. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am a little vexed. Do you want to put me on? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

*Java, YEC's, since they don't believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years or so, won't accept those figures. RSchlafly, I have once again protected this article, so stop this kind of constant arguing. Please keep an eye peeled for our more Liberal Sysop's opening it up. Thanks! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::As I pointed out above in '''Ideological Inconsistencies''', if this site is to view everything through the distorting mirror that is YEC, why do the references to [[Ice Age]]s stay in the introductory section? [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Um, please freeze on a version with facts ==

Not to rock the boat or anything, but the current un-editable version of the Global Warming page has essentially no scientific merit. Could someone please revert to a version with some actual discussion of global warming. I'm happy to write it. It involves sunshine, blackbody radiation, the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide, and an explanation of climate feedbacks. -Ifixthings

: I agree. Describe global warming accurately first. Get into the politics later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*Cool, Roger. Open it, edit it, do whatever. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, I unlocked it. Please keep science and politics separate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I love the nice accurate new version. I give it five minutes before it's reverted.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
**Yeah, it didn't last long, which is stupid because it was much more correct.[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 17:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh Ed Poor... You make me an sad panda, those corrections you made are quite horrible. The version by Ifixthings was a good one, and the missing citations could be corrected quite fast, already found several good and reliable sources. Wikintrepeter at least fixed the most outrageous claims. But still some are left like: "However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject" Still at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries support the claim and only one to my knowledge opposes it, that being American Association of Petroleum Geologists. And to be honest, them opposing it isn't really surprising. Im seriously baffled how one can deny the scientific consensus here, and seeing what i claim to be intellectual dishonesty makes me really sad, as this is something which will directly affect our lives and if not ours then at least our children's. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Both of the APA's voted that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Does that make it true? Are you quite sure their votes were not politically motivated?

:It doesn't matter how many '''groups''' take a stand on a matter of science. It only matters what the science actually is. But if you care about polls, what percent of climate scientists support or oppose the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] theory? If you know, do speak up. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, at minimum it matters what groups take a position since you claimed that "the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject". Even if that weren't the issue at hand, the number of people who are experts on an issue and have come to a conclusion a certain way about the issue does matter. While it doesn't alter who is correct in an absolute sense it does alter the estimated probability of an opinion being correct for someone who is trying to get some idea what to do and who does not have the time or resources to go through all the data that the experts do. That logic applies to any application of a scientific endeavor. For example there are still some geocentrists, the government when formulating policy does not need to worry about them. This is true for a politician whether or not that politician has bothered to understand what is wrong with geocentrism. Note that I'm not saying that global warming is equivalent to geocentrism but making the point that when evaluating claims on limited data or resources, the opinion of the vast majority matters. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::JoshuaZ allready gave so good answer that i have little to add to it. Im not sure if there has been done any exact polls on how many percentage of the experts on this area support or opposes anthropogenic global warming, but ill try to find one. Alltho i think that allready the number of supporting scientific societies and academies of science and the lack of opposing ones gives an quite good picture of the situation. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A trustworthy article should give scientific facts, don't you agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I really dont see where you are aiming at with this, as the link i just gave on the conversation bit below, shows that allready at year 2000 there where no studyes to be found that opposed the concencus, but offcourse there will allways be some "scientists" who disagree. if you are aiming for universal acceptance of an theory before it can be called an scientific fact, i must say we really dont have any. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

''The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years,'' YECs why don`t you delete this phrase and block the article? --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Joshua, the top experts say it's natural, and surveys of climatologists agree. What exactly is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: That's simply false. The UN report which you dislike was written by the top experts, who signed off on it. Again, the vast majority of the relevant scientific organizations have agreed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I've asked you twice for proof of this. I ask you here one last time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Sigh. Did you read what I wrote on your talk page or not? Almost every single author of the reports(and I listed a few as examples) is a respected scientist and there are about 40 authors to each report. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Found atleast [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 this] as an partial answer to the question here and above, alltho the report is already quite old and rapid progress has been made during few years, even at year 2000 this study didn't found '''any''' studies that disagreed with the consensus. That should already tell something. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: Hmm, interesting quote from that "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

A literature search by a [[Kyoto Protocol]] supporter is not the same as a study or a survey. It means nothing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Celsius ==

How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the [[Little Ice Age]] in 1850. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would prefer Kelvin. --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). [[User:Human|Human]] 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary "looks like". I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Political bias==

The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And ''Science'' might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's "not of interest to their readers". I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Um, what? Science isn't a "popular journal" but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No? ''This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.'' --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says "I agree with the IPCC about (anything)." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.
:And a recent examples:
Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 [[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666

== Independent scientists such as ... [[Fred Singer]] ==

Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, well by "independent" I just meant "speaking for himself", "not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line". Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Like [[James Hansen]] - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/][http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183]
:::Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::False citation: #11 doesn't say he was told not to talk about global warming, it just says that official press releases would be scrutinized. #12 doesn't mention his ability to talk at all; in it Hansen accuses Bush of stifling evidence (but without giving any examples of this supposed stifling). #13 says "Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing" but doesn't give the wording of this supposed "threat" or even a summary of it.

:::This is typical of liberals: they make claims which have no evidence. The entire case on global warming consists of claims that "the world's top scientists agree" but they give no polls to support this "consensus" claim. They say that "models predict" but when the models are contradicted by observations they say that "models aren't predictions". They say it's carbon dioxide, but CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when there was cooling, and anyway the climate record of the last 400 million years show an 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change - CO2 '''follows''' temperature, rather than driving it.

:::They are politicizing science while running a well orchestrated PR campaign of calling the kettle black. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so...... ==

Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/what_happened_predictions.html][http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/failpred.html] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc).

Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.asp?pr=2178] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.

Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.
:*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
:Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation? ==

I removed this uncited statement:

"However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position."

Can anyone give a citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the "no proof" claim should be taken out.

:But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

One of the citations: [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This "study" has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/FORUM.pdf] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

:Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

This paragraph does not distinguish between "global warming", i.e., a rise in temperature and "the Global Warming theory", i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.

Also undefined is "the effects of Global Warming". What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism Edit==
I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's ok, no problem. I was just surprised when I looked and right after my edit it said 'removed vandalism'. ;-) I didn't catch it myself until I saw your change. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

"The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years" - not according to this wiki's article on [[Ice Age]]. You can't have it both ways, did they occur, and is the earth at least 2,000,000 years old, or did they not and is it not? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

........--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationary scientists]] believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf ''What about the Ice Age?''], ''The Creation Answers Book'', Chapter 16). I guess I was hoping for a clearer answer than "........", which I don't understand. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cite Leading Group of Climate Change Skeptics? ==

As the IPCC is included in the introduction to this entry, it's appropriate that the leading group of climate change skeptics be cited, instead of individual scientists. Does anybody know what the appropriate body to cite is? I'm aware of "The Friends of Science", but I believe they're exclusively Canadian. [[User:Dbarefoot|Dbarefoot]] 08:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

I posit that if we're going to lay out the groups on both side of the global warming debate, they ought to be qualified equally, or not at all. I don't think these qualifiers are appropriate in introductions--they belong in the particular entries about the individuals or groups.

As I've queried above, I think it makes sense to describe the leading group of climate change skeptics or doubters, as they seem a natural counterpoint to the IPCC. Citing individual scientists seems too anecdotal for an encyclopedia, which ought to seek to be conclusive.

== " removing liberalness" ==

Is now given as a reason to alter an article? Ironically, the rather few "non-liberal" qualifiers I have ever typed were all reverted. Maybe because a liberal is not allowed to say these things? Or perhaps, just because since I can't understand them, I can't push the POV appropriately? [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Look at the statement i removed. i removed it because it was unsourced. perhaps i should have said "removing unsourced statement"[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Remember, liberal sources don't count! --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== How about these changes? ==

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.[Citation Needed]

I was going to use -> http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806 <- this as a citation before the page got locked :)

....and also I must take issue with this statement. "The scenario most postulated is dust storms.[4]"

Dust storms are not the "most" postulated -- The sun's solar cycles are just as much of a plausable theory....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

:I have no problem with that change, and I'm the one who entered the original information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neptune ==

I just read today that global warming has been found to be occurring on Neptune. It matches the same pattern for the time period found upon Mars and earth. It may be safe to assume that is not due to human intervention. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Where did you see this? I'd be very interested in reading about this in more detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950. I hope this is enough information to 'dig' it up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Found it. The paper is interesting. The correlation found was positive but not statistically significant between the brightness of Neptune and the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, from my reading it looks like one might expect a significant correlation even if most of the recent warming on earth is anthropogenic (note that this isn't my area of expertise so that could be painfully wrong). It should be interesting to see where this goes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I take no personal position on the issue, but I do believe any information that could be meaningful to form a complete picture should be included. That Mars and Neptune are both heating up over the same time period as the earth, and in the case of Mars even the temperature amount is similar, is certainly notable. It seems to me there is too much of an effort to dismiss information that would appear to be at odds with the concept that global warming is caused by humans, and that is unfortunate. (Note: I don't count global warming on Pluto due to Pluto's strange orbit. It has too many oddities, from my point of view, to be put in the same category.) Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the header title before posting here, I hope I didn't step on any toes. The Header ''was'' '''Global Warming on other Planets''' Which I changed to '''Warming ''of'' other Planets'''. I did this to prevent confusion, though indeed the other planets are ''also'' globes but usually, (in my experience) "global" means the sum and totality of Earth. Feel free to change it back if'n you want. - [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the talk message, and no offense taken. I've found that articles that discuss other planets usually still use the term global warming. For instance it has been popular to talk about global warming on Venus over the last decade or so, and the term global warming is used. The source about global warming on Mars also used the words global warming and Mars in the title. For these reasons I felt it was appropriate to keep the header title with global warming. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have [[experiment]]al evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is it an error? No. It is correct as it is. "Belief" means to give assent to an idea. It does not mean, despite the way some atheistic types think of it, as accepting an idea without evidence or good reason.
:Is it the best way to word it? Maybe not, but I'm not happy with your suggestion either. If I remember, I'll have more of a think about it.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::How about "Secular scientists think"? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::To my mind, "believe" is the better word. "Think" to me indicates some doubt, whereas "believe" can be a very strong conviction. But not everybody sees it that way, so I'll agree to changing it to "think", and in fact I've just done that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*This article has taken on drastic changes, it is a diluted, semi-neutral piece. It needs to be overhauled without the Liberal bias, and the removed material from warming skeptics added back. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
What is wrong with semi-neutral??? Is it only good if it carries a right wing arch-conservative bent?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Britnme, it is not true that getting peer-reviewed work published is a guarantee that it is based on experimental evidence. It only means that no obvious errors were found, and that the editor thinks it will interest his readers.

:Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==AGW==

Cut from article:

:... contrasts with the effects predicted for [[anthropogenic global warming]].

What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

Hi Dan, I'd like to point out that it is possible for Creation Scientists to believe in global warming as well, but they would not attach a 2 million year period of ice ages. ICR, for instance, takes a neutral view on global warming believing so far that the case has not been made satisfactorily, but they are open to ongoing evidence that may steer their opinion one way or the other if more concrete information is found. But even if they did feel global warming has been shown to be caused by humans, they still would not believe the earth is 2 million years old. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, the age issue would apply only to Young Earth Creationists. I will freely admit that more creation scientists are global warming skeptics than other scientists, but I don't think we need to make the distinction here, especially because, as you said, groups like ICR take a neutral stance on it, so it's a separate issue. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::The edit was to a paragraph about ice ages, not about global warming itself. That's why it is appropriate to qualify it somehow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Falsehood==

The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term "liberal falsehood" to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hockey Stick ==

This seems like an inappropriate graph to me. The gray are the real values, but they've been averaged to get a blue line to smooth out large fluctuations. Highlighting the ups and downs of the gray would give a very different picture. Also, it only deals with the northern hemisphere, which makes the overall numbers incomplete for the 'global' part of global warming. (I realize the ice samples were only taken from the north pole, but we've got another pole that needs to be checked for balance if those figures are to be as meaningful as they are made to appear.) Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

The linked citation reads: ''AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. ExxonMobil gave AEI approximately $925,000 between 1998 and 2003.''

Jacques, why do you keep cutting out the part about the AEI trying to buy scientists? It's got a citation. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Clay mathematics institute also offer money rewards, do you think it's trying to buy scientists?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I won't have any idea until you put a link in there for a cite, so I can read it for myself. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Let me guess--you own stock in Exxon? Such defensiveness ill-becomes someone with no money in this fight. --23:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And you own stock in solar power companies.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have a cite with a very long list of opponents to the global warming theory who have been sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. This is relevant to support the statement that such large oil industry companies are leading opponents of the theory. The line about offering $10,000 can be omitted if it's felt to be irrelevant.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Please do--then at least I won't get banned for an 'edit war'. And Jacques, PLEASE post a list of scientists being bankrolled by the massive Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, once you get it together. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-22T03:14:19Z

Gulik3: /* AEI and Exxon-Mobil */

{{Protected|TK}}

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Biased Line ==

"Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him"

Whoever said this you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. source that please!

Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(that he has problems trying to give away)

See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I edited in a section called 'Evidence' that was solidly backed up with references to reputable scientific sites. I see they've been reverted for 'Liberal bias'. What's 'Liberal bias' about facts about glacier recession and sea level rise? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:10, 23 March 2007

The article currently says "The theory enjoys wide political support, but many climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." This makes it sound as if there is an even balance between the number of climatologists and meteorologists who agree and disagree with the theory. This is inaccurate. The sentence should read "a minority of climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." I thought we were all about accuracy? The following sentence about 'consensus' is negated by the references to two out of that small minority of climatologists and meteorologists who disagree. By all means their names and views should be left in, to represent their disagreement, but their weight in the scale of scientific opinion should not be over-represented, and it should be balanced by reference to the names of proponents of the theory. I would be happy to make these changes, but the page is locked. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

=== Point 1 ===
"Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical." -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! "Very widely accepted"?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first link says "Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.". It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and "ex-liberal" discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the "ex-liberal" says: "MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well" (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning "overwhelming scientific evidence" but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is "very widely accepted" by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Point 4 ===
I think this is wrong. "Measures to combat global warming/climate change" are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a "fix it yourself" policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==
The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]
: Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Profit Motive ==
While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the citations needed in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Source #16 ==
How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== The whole article ==

The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?
: Global warming has become a new religion with Al Gore as the Pope of global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming "religion" similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled "religions" or "agendas," etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.

==Did you know...==
Does anyone here know that the polar ice caps have been shrinking considerably during the past three years? Now what on Mars could be doing that?

Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: Either it is a natural cycle on Mars, or solar activity increased and is generating more heat. If the later, it disproves pro-global warming scientists. Unless pro-global warming scientists want to claim that Martians are polluting CO2 on Mars to cause global warming, in which there is no evidence of Martians. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It doesn't 'disprove' pro-global warming scientists. It just factors in increased solar activity as another aspect of global warming and says nothing about anthropogenic aspects. Scientists generally believe that solar forcing, as it's called, is in the neighbourhood of one tenth of the total contribution to the heating of the atmosphere. Even this skeptic is citing solar forcing as no more than one third to two thirds contribution, and feels that anthropogenic contributions will be more important over the next century. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar . What are your figures for the extent of polar ice cap recession on Mars compared to the extent of polar ice cap recession on Earth? Take into account too the very different atmospheric conditions prevailing on Mars. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]]1:15, 24 March 2007

== Al Gore is no expert and no saint ==
These lines were removed, but they paint a picture of Al Gore:
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm
Al Gore is no scientist, and he didn't do anything to halt global warming while in office. I think he does a lot of credibility damage to global warming because of these things. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==
Dang, this article is really biased. People need to realise that Earth is changing, and it is being caused by humans. It is sad to see how people are so disrespectful to the work of God. I think that destroying everything great that the Lord has made is a terrible sin and this website should recognise the harm that they are doing to this great gift that God has given us.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 19:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*I believe there is plenty of evidence, and scientists, who do not adopt the panic-mode of Gore and others. Many believe it is a natural occurrence, perhaps hastened by fossil fuel consumption, but nevertheless something that has occurred hundreds of times, in the life of the planet. It is your job, everyone, as contributors and posters here, to edit the page to strike some balance, rather than dismiss opposing thought as morons, and ignore what others say. ''If this cannot be done, I will lock the page''. I hate to do that, because supposedly adults, thinking people, should be able to arrive at a meaningful compromise. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Lots of things are "perfectly natural".... like dying of [[cholera]] at age 28. We do our best to stop that from happening, too. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The way we stopped cholera is by avoiding wishful thinking and carrying out careful experiments. There's a fascinating detective story about how the first researcher proved that it was contaminated water (from a single pump?) that was causing a cholera epidemic in London. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::On the other hand, if we render the planet TOTALLY unlivable, Jesus will HAVE to return and save us all!

::No need to lock the page. I know a lot about what both sides are saying and can perhaps help to craft a balanced article. (I am the original author of [[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks Ed!! Thats the spirit! I posted some links below, so some can take a look, possibly add their own, of actual scientists who just hate all the alarmism. Feel free to IM me anytime. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:*'''Sorry, some felt the need for a fight tonight, I guess, and kept reverting. Just let me know, I will unlock it once the children have stopped their tantrums.''' --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Facts & Links To Check Out... ==

Whose Ox Is Gored? The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804]

The Tempest
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html]

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html]

An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away: [http://newsbusters.org/node/9262]

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

<blockquote>
"...But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

'''Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.'''

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

'''While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”'''

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

'''It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.'''

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

'''“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”'''

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

'''“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”''' </blockquote>
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

== Al Gore Header ==

*Is it really necessary? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

There are hundreds of people, some with star power and knowledge exceeding Al Gore, on both sides of this issue. Why is Al Gore given somemuch time and space in this catagory?

"So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming""

quoted from above. By whose notion is he the leading expert on Global Warming? Where is reference to Hansen, Broecker, Schmidt,Thompson et al, you know people who actually study this stuff for a living? Why focus on Gore? ''---The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Third Day''

:The Democratic Party is largely Liberal, and global warming is a big issue for liberals. Al Gore is one of the most popular Democrats, and he has a book out called "Earth in the Balance". Who else *but* Gore? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
*Were you speaking to me? If so, I am wondering why the info under the Gore heading couldn't be better placed in the body of the article rather than his own heading..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

::Conservatives have [[Richard Lindzen]], who is an actual scientist who makes sense and doesn't fudge the numbers. Liberals only have <s>[[Jim Hansen]],</s> who will never live down his "scary scenarios" remark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::*Oops, I meant [[Stephen Schneider]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I just added a line to the Gore header, to balance it some. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

:Then go in the history and find the source, and put it back in. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
*Exactly! And be sure to let either Hoji or me know if another revert war starts. ;-) ---~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocking ==

This article is far from complete. When will it be unlocked so we can add information about scientific data showing natural causes for warming, explanation of the solar flux theory, carbon dioxide tracking temps, cosmoclimatology, paleoclimatology, etc. As it stands it makes it look like all we care about is the political side of things. This can't be true, can it? This unsigned comment was made by [[User:Third Day]]

*You are right. I suppose for now, if you would like to post the additions here, they can be pasted over. Or you can contact me, and I could open it up for you to edit. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously nothing was important enough to contact me about, or post here about. Makes me wonder why, upon locking a page, people want it open, for what? If they don't come back with a suggestion or contribution, what is the point? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I've been on the road, hence I did not respond. Some of us have lives outside of this site. I will put together a summary of additions I feel worthy and post here in the talk section. I do wonder if the whole Wiki concept is undermined if the additions need to be vetted by a select few. It may take years for the articles to settle into a reflection of community knowledge, but thats the point, right? Nobody goes to a wiki, any kind of wiki, for the absolute truth on anything. No wiki is a valid source in a peer reviewed paper or even a college paper. It is a way to get a sense of the state of knowledge in a community of users. Wikipedia suffers from the fact that the community of users is so broad as to produce everchanging articles. There are Wikis that restrict the user base to members of certain communities - like a company or agency or users of a particular software. But if Conservapedia wants to surviv and not be mocked it needs to open itself up to slings and arrows. If indeed, we conservatives really believe that our point of view will dominate, then we need not be afraid to open up to liberal edits - cause enough of us will respond in force, and in time will overwhelm. If we just lock down the articles will never evolve (pardon the word) into a compleat, trustworthy wikipedia. OK, I'm done ranting. Off my soap box now :). - Third Day

==Are there any Wikipedia editors here?==
An article on Scientific data withholding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_withholding] has been nominated for deletion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_data_withholding#.5B.5BScientific_data_withholding.5D.5D] If you are a Wikipedia editor, please read the article and vote. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 00:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong question to ask here. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to canvas for votes. You're doing the right thing in the wrong way. Next step is RFC and/or an email to Jimbo. You don't win this kind of battle by stooping to their level. Stay here and work on the climate articles, instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I just learned about "canvassing." I know Connelly is doing it because people are showing up to vote who have not read the article or the Talk page. Teach me the right way to handle this, Ed. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is off-topic, but since I brought it up I better finish it.

:This is the type of battle that it's okay to lose. When people see that the process was followed on one side, but ignored or misused on the other side, then sympathy is genereated for the correct side. Think Rosa Parks. Think [[sit-ins at lunch counters]]. And also think about contributing more here. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Using "Global Climate Change" is not kosher ===

This is a way for carbon alarmists to hedge their bets, and answer critics if there's a series of cold winters. In the 1970s they were ringing the Ice Age bell, now they've settled on warming so they can dial back the economies of the West (while ignoring China). [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The [[global warming controversy]] has replaced the [[Vietnam War]] and [[nuclear power]] as the big-ticket leftist issue. And now that Communism has faded from Europe and is morphing in [[China]], what are all the socialists going to get into but the [[Environment]]? It's the perfect materialistic cause, and there's plenty of money to go around. The US government alone spends over a billion dollars a year on "research" and the United Nations issues assessments every few years (see [[IPCC]]). We all know how objective and fair minded the UN [[General Assembly]] has been on non-environmental issues such as [[human rights]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::note that nuclear power is actully the best canidate for clean, alternative energy; yet, most enviornmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace are vehemently opposed to it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This article is a completely unsourced diatribe. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== pictures ==
We need some pictures--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Admin: Can we use wikipedia.org pictures? --[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:yes if it's public domain.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 04:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

I don't think I would be too wrong in saying that conservative young-earth creationism and skepticism over human-induced climate change usually go together, not all the time of course, but on this site they seem to. Whats strange however, is that geological evidence is cited uncritically in this article in order to discredit human-induced climate change:

:"Global warming is a natural periodic increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and it has always been followed by period of global cooling ... According to geologists, the Earth has experience numerous ice ages."

Even though this is incompatible with young earth creationism. To quote from Conservapedia's own [[Ice Age]] entry:
:"Mainstream geologists and Young Earth creationists are at odds over whether any ice ages have actually occurred."

A clear demonstration, in my opinion, of the type of muddled thinking that conservative fundamentalist ideology generates. (These inconsistent portions of the articles were even added by the same author: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=124708 Global warming edit history] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ice_Age&diff=prev&oldid=113042 Ice Age edit history].)
[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's more a typical demonstration of jumping to conclunions on the part of liberals. I'm the author of the current [[global warming]] article, and I'm not a YEC. :P --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I would also point out that I am the main author of the [[Theory of evolution]] article which is definitely critical the macroevolutionary position, and I am undecided regarding the global warming issue in regards to its possible causes and its possible effects. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::You still add criticism of mainstream geology when it suits you, and uncritically marshal it in your support when it doesn't. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 16:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Orgone has a very good point. A YEC should have no issue with global warming since the earth has not been around long enough to go through these climate changes that geologists say we have gone through.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

'''See also:''' [[Nineteen_Eighty-Four | Doublethink]]

==Liberal bias==

I would like to ask anyone who disagrees with top U.S. climate experts - Harvard and MIT scientists and U.S. state climatologists - to go slowly and carefully when editing this article.

My dad majored in physics, and I got top grades in math and physics. There is a lot of liberal misinformation about [[Anthropogenic global warming]] tied to the UN-promoted [[Kyoto Protocol]], the global warming treaty which seeks a "[[carbon tax]]" and other forms of [[emissions trading]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well ''my'' dad is bigger than ''your'' dad so ''there''! (Childish of me i know, but i couldn't resist it!) :-p [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Java, I agree with some of your edits, but I think that the first paragraph should stick to undisputed facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:I aded references. [[User:Java|Java]] 17:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all references tell the truth. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Is this a joke? I referenced from Nature, PNAS, Science and GISS. Why should the current references tell the truth? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::::for 1 thing anything talking about "the last 420,000 years" is wrong. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am a little vexed. Do you want to put me on? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

*Java, YEC's, since they don't believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years or so, won't accept those figures. RSchlafly, I have once again protected this article, so stop this kind of constant arguing. Please keep an eye peeled for our more Liberal Sysop's opening it up. Thanks! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::As I pointed out above in '''Ideological Inconsistencies''', if this site is to view everything through the distorting mirror that is YEC, why do the references to [[Ice Age]]s stay in the introductory section? [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Um, please freeze on a version with facts ==

Not to rock the boat or anything, but the current un-editable version of the Global Warming page has essentially no scientific merit. Could someone please revert to a version with some actual discussion of global warming. I'm happy to write it. It involves sunshine, blackbody radiation, the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide, and an explanation of climate feedbacks. -Ifixthings

: I agree. Describe global warming accurately first. Get into the politics later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*Cool, Roger. Open it, edit it, do whatever. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, I unlocked it. Please keep science and politics separate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I love the nice accurate new version. I give it five minutes before it's reverted.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
**Yeah, it didn't last long, which is stupid because it was much more correct.[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 17:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh Ed Poor... You make me an sad panda, those corrections you made are quite horrible. The version by Ifixthings was a good one, and the missing citations could be corrected quite fast, already found several good and reliable sources. Wikintrepeter at least fixed the most outrageous claims. But still some are left like: "However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject" Still at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries support the claim and only one to my knowledge opposes it, that being American Association of Petroleum Geologists. And to be honest, them opposing it isn't really surprising. Im seriously baffled how one can deny the scientific consensus here, and seeing what i claim to be intellectual dishonesty makes me really sad, as this is something which will directly affect our lives and if not ours then at least our children's. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Both of the APA's voted that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Does that make it true? Are you quite sure their votes were not politically motivated?

:It doesn't matter how many '''groups''' take a stand on a matter of science. It only matters what the science actually is. But if you care about polls, what percent of climate scientists support or oppose the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] theory? If you know, do speak up. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, at minimum it matters what groups take a position since you claimed that "the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject". Even if that weren't the issue at hand, the number of people who are experts on an issue and have come to a conclusion a certain way about the issue does matter. While it doesn't alter who is correct in an absolute sense it does alter the estimated probability of an opinion being correct for someone who is trying to get some idea what to do and who does not have the time or resources to go through all the data that the experts do. That logic applies to any application of a scientific endeavor. For example there are still some geocentrists, the government when formulating policy does not need to worry about them. This is true for a politician whether or not that politician has bothered to understand what is wrong with geocentrism. Note that I'm not saying that global warming is equivalent to geocentrism but making the point that when evaluating claims on limited data or resources, the opinion of the vast majority matters. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::JoshuaZ allready gave so good answer that i have little to add to it. Im not sure if there has been done any exact polls on how many percentage of the experts on this area support or opposes anthropogenic global warming, but ill try to find one. Alltho i think that allready the number of supporting scientific societies and academies of science and the lack of opposing ones gives an quite good picture of the situation. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A trustworthy article should give scientific facts, don't you agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I really dont see where you are aiming at with this, as the link i just gave on the conversation bit below, shows that allready at year 2000 there where no studyes to be found that opposed the concencus, but offcourse there will allways be some "scientists" who disagree. if you are aiming for universal acceptance of an theory before it can be called an scientific fact, i must say we really dont have any. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

''The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years,'' YECs why don`t you delete this phrase and block the article? --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Joshua, the top experts say it's natural, and surveys of climatologists agree. What exactly is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: That's simply false. The UN report which you dislike was written by the top experts, who signed off on it. Again, the vast majority of the relevant scientific organizations have agreed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I've asked you twice for proof of this. I ask you here one last time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Sigh. Did you read what I wrote on your talk page or not? Almost every single author of the reports(and I listed a few as examples) is a respected scientist and there are about 40 authors to each report. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Found atleast [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 this] as an partial answer to the question here and above, alltho the report is already quite old and rapid progress has been made during few years, even at year 2000 this study didn't found '''any''' studies that disagreed with the consensus. That should already tell something. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: Hmm, interesting quote from that "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

A literature search by a [[Kyoto Protocol]] supporter is not the same as a study or a survey. It means nothing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Celsius ==

How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the [[Little Ice Age]] in 1850. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would prefer Kelvin. --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). [[User:Human|Human]] 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary "looks like". I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Political bias==

The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And ''Science'' might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's "not of interest to their readers". I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Um, what? Science isn't a "popular journal" but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No? ''This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.'' --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says "I agree with the IPCC about (anything)." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.
:And a recent examples:
Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 [[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666

== Independent scientists such as ... [[Fred Singer]] ==

Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, well by "independent" I just meant "speaking for himself", "not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line". Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Like [[James Hansen]] - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/][http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183]
:::Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::False citation: #11 doesn't say he was told not to talk about global warming, it just says that official press releases would be scrutinized. #12 doesn't mention his ability to talk at all; in it Hansen accuses Bush of stifling evidence (but without giving any examples of this supposed stifling). #13 says "Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing" but doesn't give the wording of this supposed "threat" or even a summary of it.

:::This is typical of liberals: they make claims which have no evidence. The entire case on global warming consists of claims that "the world's top scientists agree" but they give no polls to support this "consensus" claim. They say that "models predict" but when the models are contradicted by observations they say that "models aren't predictions". They say it's carbon dioxide, but CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when there was cooling, and anyway the climate record of the last 400 million years show an 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change - CO2 '''follows''' temperature, rather than driving it.

:::They are politicizing science while running a well orchestrated PR campaign of calling the kettle black. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so...... ==

Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/what_happened_predictions.html][http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/failpred.html] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc).

Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.asp?pr=2178] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.

Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.
:*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
:Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation? ==

I removed this uncited statement:

"However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position."

Can anyone give a citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the "no proof" claim should be taken out.

:But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

One of the citations: [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This "study" has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/FORUM.pdf] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

:Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

This paragraph does not distinguish between "global warming", i.e., a rise in temperature and "the Global Warming theory", i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.

Also undefined is "the effects of Global Warming". What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism Edit==
I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's ok, no problem. I was just surprised when I looked and right after my edit it said 'removed vandalism'. ;-) I didn't catch it myself until I saw your change. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

"The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years" - not according to this wiki's article on [[Ice Age]]. You can't have it both ways, did they occur, and is the earth at least 2,000,000 years old, or did they not and is it not? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

........--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationary scientists]] believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf ''What about the Ice Age?''], ''The Creation Answers Book'', Chapter 16). I guess I was hoping for a clearer answer than "........", which I don't understand. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cite Leading Group of Climate Change Skeptics? ==

As the IPCC is included in the introduction to this entry, it's appropriate that the leading group of climate change skeptics be cited, instead of individual scientists. Does anybody know what the appropriate body to cite is? I'm aware of "The Friends of Science", but I believe they're exclusively Canadian. [[User:Dbarefoot|Dbarefoot]] 08:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

I posit that if we're going to lay out the groups on both side of the global warming debate, they ought to be qualified equally, or not at all. I don't think these qualifiers are appropriate in introductions--they belong in the particular entries about the individuals or groups.

As I've queried above, I think it makes sense to describe the leading group of climate change skeptics or doubters, as they seem a natural counterpoint to the IPCC. Citing individual scientists seems too anecdotal for an encyclopedia, which ought to seek to be conclusive.

== " removing liberalness" ==

Is now given as a reason to alter an article? Ironically, the rather few "non-liberal" qualifiers I have ever typed were all reverted. Maybe because a liberal is not allowed to say these things? Or perhaps, just because since I can't understand them, I can't push the POV appropriately? [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Look at the statement i removed. i removed it because it was unsourced. perhaps i should have said "removing unsourced statement"[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Remember, liberal sources don't count! --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== How about these changes? ==

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.[Citation Needed]

I was going to use -> http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806 <- this as a citation before the page got locked :)

....and also I must take issue with this statement. "The scenario most postulated is dust storms.[4]"

Dust storms are not the "most" postulated -- The sun's solar cycles are just as much of a plausable theory....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

:I have no problem with that change, and I'm the one who entered the original information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neptune ==

I just read today that global warming has been found to be occurring on Neptune. It matches the same pattern for the time period found upon Mars and earth. It may be safe to assume that is not due to human intervention. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Where did you see this? I'd be very interested in reading about this in more detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950. I hope this is enough information to 'dig' it up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Found it. The paper is interesting. The correlation found was positive but not statistically significant between the brightness of Neptune and the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, from my reading it looks like one might expect a significant correlation even if most of the recent warming on earth is anthropogenic (note that this isn't my area of expertise so that could be painfully wrong). It should be interesting to see where this goes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I take no personal position on the issue, but I do believe any information that could be meaningful to form a complete picture should be included. That Mars and Neptune are both heating up over the same time period as the earth, and in the case of Mars even the temperature amount is similar, is certainly notable. It seems to me there is too much of an effort to dismiss information that would appear to be at odds with the concept that global warming is caused by humans, and that is unfortunate. (Note: I don't count global warming on Pluto due to Pluto's strange orbit. It has too many oddities, from my point of view, to be put in the same category.) Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the header title before posting here, I hope I didn't step on any toes. The Header ''was'' '''Global Warming on other Planets''' Which I changed to '''Warming ''of'' other Planets'''. I did this to prevent confusion, though indeed the other planets are ''also'' globes but usually, (in my experience) "global" means the sum and totality of Earth. Feel free to change it back if'n you want. - [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the talk message, and no offense taken. I've found that articles that discuss other planets usually still use the term global warming. For instance it has been popular to talk about global warming on Venus over the last decade or so, and the term global warming is used. The source about global warming on Mars also used the words global warming and Mars in the title. For these reasons I felt it was appropriate to keep the header title with global warming. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have [[experiment]]al evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is it an error? No. It is correct as it is. "Belief" means to give assent to an idea. It does not mean, despite the way some atheistic types think of it, as accepting an idea without evidence or good reason.
:Is it the best way to word it? Maybe not, but I'm not happy with your suggestion either. If I remember, I'll have more of a think about it.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::How about "Secular scientists think"? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::To my mind, "believe" is the better word. "Think" to me indicates some doubt, whereas "believe" can be a very strong conviction. But not everybody sees it that way, so I'll agree to changing it to "think", and in fact I've just done that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*This article has taken on drastic changes, it is a diluted, semi-neutral piece. It needs to be overhauled without the Liberal bias, and the removed material from warming skeptics added back. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
What is wrong with semi-neutral??? Is it only good if it carries a right wing arch-conservative bent?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Britnme, it is not true that getting peer-reviewed work published is a guarantee that it is based on experimental evidence. It only means that no obvious errors were found, and that the editor thinks it will interest his readers.

:Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==AGW==

Cut from article:

:... contrasts with the effects predicted for [[anthropogenic global warming]].

What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

Hi Dan, I'd like to point out that it is possible for Creation Scientists to believe in global warming as well, but they would not attach a 2 million year period of ice ages. ICR, for instance, takes a neutral view on global warming believing so far that the case has not been made satisfactorily, but they are open to ongoing evidence that may steer their opinion one way or the other if more concrete information is found. But even if they did feel global warming has been shown to be caused by humans, they still would not believe the earth is 2 million years old. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, the age issue would apply only to Young Earth Creationists. I will freely admit that more creation scientists are global warming skeptics than other scientists, but I don't think we need to make the distinction here, especially because, as you said, groups like ICR take a neutral stance on it, so it's a separate issue. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::The edit was to a paragraph about ice ages, not about global warming itself. That's why it is appropriate to qualify it somehow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Falsehood==

The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term "liberal falsehood" to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hockey Stick ==

This seems like an inappropriate graph to me. The gray are the real values, but they've been averaged to get a blue line to smooth out large fluctuations. Highlighting the ups and downs of the gray would give a very different picture. Also, it only deals with the northern hemisphere, which makes the overall numbers incomplete for the 'global' part of global warming. (I realize the ice samples were only taken from the north pole, but we've got another pole that needs to be checked for balance if those figures are to be as meaningful as they are made to appear.) Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

The linked citation reads: ''AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. ExxonMobil gave AEI approximately $925,000 between 1998 and 2003.''

Jacques, why do you keep cutting out the part about the AEI trying to buy scientists? It's got a citation. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Clay mathematics institute also offer money rewards, do you think it's trying to buy scientists?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I won't have any idea until you put a link in there for a cite, so I can read it for myself. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Let me guess--you own stock in Exxon? Such defensiveness ill-becomes someone with no money in this fight. --23:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-05-22T03:10:53Z

Gulik3: /* Gonzales statement is not controversial */

good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gospel of Thomas ==

It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, I'll talk with you about anything you like. psychotherapy sucks, no one who knows the myth talks, the Church defends itself vigorously in court. The critics are loud, the critics can publish cheaply. A simplicity of the situation exists, but how can a person view the simplicity, there's the question, would you say? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 09:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Newton ==
I have copied the conversation below onto the [[Isaac Newton]] talk page. I think it makes more sense to have it there for future reference. If we need to continue the conversation, let's do so over there. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my comment, as you misunderstood [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]'s use of the term "peer". I guess we need to back up a bit. In Britian, knighthoods are given for exceptional achievement or service to the nation, much like the USA gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Newton was the first to be made a knight for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield. (From doesgodexist.org: "In 1705, Queen Anne knighted him, Sir Isaac Newton. It was the first knighthood for scientific discoveries rather than deeds on the battlefield or in government." [http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec01/IsaacNewtonAndGodsLawOfGravity.html]) Thus Newton was given his title for his *body of work*, which of course included topics like gravity and calculus. I understand that *you* have no respect for such awards. Indeed, there is some controversy over modern versions, even in Britian (see [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/world/main590022.shtml]). However, I think it's simply not true to say that *No* American has any respect for British nobility titles - see [[User:Robledo|Robledo]]'s examples below. Given that Newton's achievements were so great as to be awarded an honor that had previously been given only for military prowess, I think the "Sir" is worth keeping. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Honorary knighthoods (accepted & thus I'm guessing respected...)

* George Bush
* Ronald Reagan
* Colin Powell
* General Norman Schwarzkopf
* Bob Hope

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm

Any more sweepingly daft generalisations to make? :P --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you've made it for me. I've never heard any American call any of those men "sir". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Naturally....none of them are British citizens. Read the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm source], son....third paragraph. *sighs* --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's because it is inappropriate for an American to use such a title.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm] Newton, however, was not American, thus the use of the title is appropriate. I know this stuff is complicated. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Exactly. To put it in context. "Bono" will never be "Sir Bono" (aside from the fact that his real name is Paul Hewson) because he is not a British citizen. So he can never be a "Sir". However, Newton ''was'' a British citizen, or a subject of the queen (or king), if you will. So he should be referred to by his correct title. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My students are fond of this song about Sir Issac - it's in MP3 format. [http://www.acme.com/jef/singing_science/newton-160.mp3]--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Correct, that point is not under dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:: No, it is definitely not under dispute. A theory in scientific terms can come close to a fact, just like evolution. Actually, evolution is a fact. Do you claim there is no such thing as microevolution?

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave ''theory'' of light>
4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a ''scientific theory'' must follow what is known as the ''scientific method''. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does ''not'' have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is ''not'' synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]]. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: They were developed in very different ways and at very different times '''and''' they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I believe the latest version of the draft is mine. I'm knowledgeable of Special Relativity and I was trying to explain it in as basic terms as possible. I don't know much about General Relativity other than what I've picked up from other people. However RSchlafly I hope you realise that gravity is a fairly complex force which adds a lot of extra levels of difficulty onto Special Relativity. If anything they should be given different sections simply because they are so abominably different in scale. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, Special Relativity is simpler. That is why it is called "special". I favor one article titled Relativity that tries to give a concise explanation. There are many textbooks on the subject if the reader really wants the full course. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Personally, I'd favour Relativity as a very short concise "these are the principles of" style article (a sentence or two on each) with links to separate articles for each of the two theories. Also, because it is specialised, "simpler" is not the word. It is "simpler" because the maths is less hardcore, two very different things. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Copernicus ==

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems ''still exist in modern astronomy today'' (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::*Just a little note here, a quick check of the edit history of the page reveals AmesG's edit '''''did not''''' say that Tycho was a "previous astronomer" but in fact, said the exact opposite! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=71299 . HTH [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 15:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on [[Talk:Theory]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
Thanks for the revert; however, what is wrong with reverting back to my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=prev&oldid=76854]. (sourced ref from Ann Coulter).
I think it is wrong for liberal editors to change sourced conservative views and replace them with their own liberal opinions (in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments). This is Conservapedia, and I don't want this to turn into Wikipedia, where the libs edit out what they don't like. They preach about free speech, including burning the flag, but they won't allow sourced comments from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 12:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: If some edit of yours got lost, go ahead and put it back in. I was merely trying to revert an edit of AmesG. He removed a perfectly good quote, and inserted a sentence in a half that had 3 factual errors in it. Almost every edit of his is erroneous and destructive. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Reply ==
A few things.
# As requested by Ed Poor, I have posted my reply to your "charges" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Why_do_you_stay.3F here]. I feel that my edits to [[Copernicus]] have been vindicated.
# In re the [[Theory]] article, Shlaf, you've been argued into a corner you can't get out of on the talk page. Please answer the comments there before claiming that you're right.
# In re the [[Antonin Scalia]] article, I never intended to imply that Scalia does not support the ''Brown'' decision. I'm sure he comes up with his own way to back it up. However, the [[Earl Warren]] opinion on ''Brown'' did rest on responsivism, which Scalia disagrees with flat out, as you have proven for me. So he disagrees with the popular reason for ''Brown'', which is '''all that I argued''', regardless of what you inferred. And you haven't disproven that thesis except to say, "Wha?! Who!??! Huh!?"
# Thank you to everyone who defended me. I appreciate it.
# I still think you can't be serious regarding the [[Theory]] article.
# Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, your edits to [[Copernicus]] were entirely wrong. In fact, all of you edits have been 100% bogus. I just had to revert this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=77179&oldid=77166] to [[ACLU]]. You just changed one line and managed to insert three errors. I believe that you should be blocked for persisting in making such destructive edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: As discussed on [[talk:ACLU]], yours is a bias-laden statement that makes no pretense at neutrality. Mine is legal fact. Look it up, or read the case, if it's just not too much trouble for ya. I would be thrilled to e-mail you a PDF from Lexis so you can have a go at it. I already have.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good delete==

Good delete on Flat Earth Society. I believe that both of those organizations, while the URLs exist, are hoaxes and do not belong on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, those sites are hoaxes, and so was the article. I just added an article on [[Flat Earth]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pedophilic priests==

I had previously deleted that, but sysop Ed Poor wanted to try to make it into an article. Do you think it would be maybe appropriate to make a more general article called something such as "Catholic Church abuse scandal"? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: I was thinking of moving it to a more general Pedophila article, but someone deleted that. Not sure why. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

That could also be done. At the very least, there should be a section on the specific Catholic aspects within that article, because it was obviously a fairly significant news story. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:47, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Flat Earth==

So, are you going to explain your block of the Flat Earth page? Given that my arguments are valid and need to be addressed I would have thought that an open, and more thoughtful outcome of the situation could have arisen. Also, given that its either my version or yours, the decision to block should be made by a different sysop (i.e. not one of the involved editors!) as to whether or not the page should be blocked. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: So tell me on the Talk page where my version is in error. I posted why your version is wrong. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry, I had already posted this before I realised you had posted on the talk page! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I added a lot to [[Flat Earth]] and made some comments at [[talk:Flat Earth]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Thanks. Conservapedia ought to be one place where evolutionists cannot make fun of Christians as flat earthers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mohammedans? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&curid=1925&diff=87904&oldid=87876 Mohammedans]? Never heard of it. I guess you learn something new every day... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a very old fashioned term, and considered to be offensive. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is an old-fashioned term, but it used to be extremely common and it is still in dictionaries. It fell out of favor, but I don't think that it is correct to say that it is offensive. It is no more offensive than "moslem". Some people prefer "muslim" to "moslem", but there is nothing wrong with using "moslem" or "mohammedan". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Moslem vs. Muslim is a trans-Atlantic distinction. As for "Mohammedan," I studied with one of the nation's best Islamicists when I was at Rice. She specifically told us never to use "Mohammedan," and if you read any formal scholarship (after 1900) on the subject, you'll learn not to do it either. May I suggest Berkey, "the Formation of Islam"? Or, if you still disagree, we might as well revert to the Sayers translation of ''Song of Roland'', and just call Muslims ''Paynims''. It has about the same pejorative meaning.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, there are those who prefer not to use the term Mohammedan, but their objection is not that it is an ethnic slur or a synonym for paynim. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Those who "prefer not to use" the term are the Muslims themselves :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: And there are terrorists who prefer not to be called terrorists, and Moslems who prefer not to be called Moslems. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::My understanding is that the reason why it is not used is because it falsely implies that Muslims worship Mohammed. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Reasons like that are sometimes given, but they don't make much sense. Note that your reason is different from AmesG's reason. I don't think that there is any good reason. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I suppose the #1 determinant for whether the term goes in should be whether it is, in fact, commonly used or not. I can't speak for others, but I don't hear it used. Maybe in other parts of the country the term is more common, I don't know. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: It used to be more common. You'll find it a lot if you read old books. I would not be suggesting it if I thought that it was an ethnic slur. It is not. It literally means just a follower of Mohammad. Nothing wrong with the term. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think the one place I've seen it is in an old book in my church library, so that makes sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's bad because it is an ethnic slur, and insulting for the reason that MountainDew stated - it implies that Muslims worship Mohammed, which is insulting in the same way that saying that Jews worship Moses would be insulting. If you can find it in old books, guys, but not in any other books, it probably means that the term is outdated, as I've argued. I'm sure you'll find "colored" in old books describing African Americans, but I'd advise against using it in an article...-10:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It is VERY offensive for muslims to be referred to as Mohammadeans, for the above reasons. They are a very adamantly monotheistic faith, and any implication that they worship a human being is considered blasphemy (and you know how they feel about that). It's like calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians. Leave it out already. Why would you want to be so offensive. [[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't think that Mohammedan is an ethnic slur any more than "Abrahamic religion" is an ethnic slur on Jews. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:19, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::You don't think a lot of the time. Apology accepted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: AmesG, I was not apologizing to you.
::: PalMD, calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians is not particularly offensive. Of course, there are people who are offended by innocuous statements. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Since you weren't apologizing to me before, I'll accept it now.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: For what? Are you a Mohammedan who doesn't like to be called a Mohammedan? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

Dear Ms Schlafly - I did quote the abortion poll correctly, and when you quoted it selectively I expanded your quotation to give details. Please check the link. My subsequent editing of your misleading statement has been reverted. I suggest altering it to the unarguable one that 62% of Americans do not want Roe v Wade to be returned. Unless I hear your reasons why you believe this to be less than factual, I will edit it to that version shortly. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 16:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your statement did not match the most recent poll on the cited page with the poll results. Yes, your statement is less than factual. Give support on the Talk page, if you wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I posted actual facts. I am against misrepresenting facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Here is something I put on my userpage. Please spread the word among your friends ==

'''ARTICLES I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WRITTEN AT CONSERVAPEDIA:'''

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Right to life leaders]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 00:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

==Adultery==
Could we divide the topic of adultery into, for example, the [[Sin of adultery]] and "[[Adultery]]"? I'm not sure what the two types of infraction should be called, but it might make it easier on readers if we did a sort of division. What do you think would be best? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: What's the difference between the Sin of adultery and Adultery? What's the latter, the crime? I don't really agree with the recent edits on that page, and I guess I'll say so there. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Homosexuality article ==

Hi Roger. Could you please alter the first sentences of [[Homosexuality]] in accordance with [[talk:homosexuality#attraction or activity]] or comment there? I see you altered the Biblical Prohibition section. Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:15, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Capital punishment==

What was dubious about explaining the context of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as a covenant between the Israelis and God?

By the way, I wasn't the one who put the stupid comment about the Ten Commandments in there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why do you hate gay people so much? ==
Just curious. I'd love to know the reasons behind your "principled" disagreement.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: My disagreement is with your edits, as they are frequently erroneous and destructive. It has nothing to do with you being gay or not gay. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I never said I was gay or not (!?), but as someone who believes in equality & egalitarianism, I think it offends all of humanity, the level of distaste that your edits level against homosexuals.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: I never said that I hate gay people. Your bigotry is noted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm, bigotry is not accepting bigotry now? (butting in where I'm not wanted) [[User:Human|Human]] 21:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently AmesG and you want to use this page for ad hominem attacks on me. You will note that AmesG does not mention any specific edits to support his attacks. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

i know i have no part in this, but doesnt it seem like "mr. equality and egalitarianism and tolerance" AmesG is showing an utter lack of tolerance?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:No, AmesG asked Roger a question and he schlaflied it by avoiding the question and making a random assessment of the user. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:51, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I liked this edit. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homophobia&diff=next&oldid=140220] It's exactly what I was trying to say, but couldn't put into words. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:29, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question about your beliefs ==

Have you heard how they genetically alter fruit to make new fruits? I strongly disagree with this practice because it messes with the Earth the way it was created. Next it will be human cloning. This is just a stepping stone. Whats your opinion? (By the way I love your user page! It is so exciting. Mine is boring.) Thanks your friend--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the genetic modifications have been for the better, so far. Human cloning is another story. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== f****t==

Please do not ever use the above-referenced word in an encyclopedia article. It is an offensive and ignorant slur, and does not reflect well upon the user. Thank you. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 14:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Why do you say that it is "ignorant"? Is it more offensive than "homophobic"? Why? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

It is more offensive than "homophobic." The parallel is, "n****r" : "racist" :: "f****t" : "homophobe".-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:32, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: So you say, but that is not my experience. Do you have any evidence to back up what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:56, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Call a gay man a "f****t" and see the effect. Ask a homosexual how they feel about that word. If you have any emotions at all, you can see why it's more offensive.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I hear black men say "nigger" frequently. I have heard homosexual man say "faggot" frequently. Both are obviously "in words". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, let's clarify the difference. I'm not saying it's okay to say it under any circumstances. But the generally accepted cultural convention is that someone "in" the group may use a derogatory slur, just like you can say, "yeah, I sucked on that exam," but your friend saying, "DUDE, you sucked on that exam," is not okay. That doesn't make EITHER words that are okay when used by someone outside the group, and esp. not to convey malice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::shouldnt the "homophobes" only be able to call themselves homophobes?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
NO. There is a difference. But tell you what if you don't see it, and if you don't want to be called a "homophobe," fine. I won't call you that, and I'll not use the word, if you won't use the words discussed above. This is only because I can't seem to make the difference clear to you, although it would be clear to anyone who actually is gay.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, I see the difference. You just happen to like some name-calling better than other name-calling, based on your own personal prejudices. That's all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Revert==
Hey can you revert my user talk page? --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 14:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[Geocentric theory]] ==

Roger: Strange as it might seem, I have personally run into people who cite the [[Bible]] in support of the [[geocentric theory]] of the [[solar system]]. I'm not saying that I buy those interpretations. I am saying that there's more to that proposition than someone (like user [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]]) trying to be a "wiseguy." I would say to [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] that she ought to cite her sources for any claims of "evidence advanced to support geocentrism." Then we can cite contrary evidence. But as I say--I don't think those edits really constituted subtle vandalism. I believe that the editor submitted them in good faith, and all that they need are appropriate citations.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:13, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: I don't know whether she believes that stuff or not, but even if she believes it, that is not reason enough to put it in an encyclopedia. A lot of people believe a lot of kooky things, and we can't list them all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see why you are so opposed to the page stating that some people believe the geocentric theory. Clearly some people do believe it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No, it is not clear. Who? Where? How do you know that the web page is not a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::It looks real, as does [http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ This one] --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am not going to pay the $27 to try to find out. What if someone else says the Moon is made of green cheese and cites a web site? It is not much evidence that there is any significant belief in a green cheese theory. Maybe it could be mentioned in an article on Internet scams or something like that. I did look at the work that Mmeelliissssaa referred me too, and it is not a serious piece of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:49, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Exactly what i try to tell to creationists time to time, if 99% of biologists think creationism has no merits and is just view held by few people because of their religious beliefs, why waste time and space on encyclopedia for that. But still, most encyclopedias like Wikipedia are willing to add articles that admit that some people still believe earth to be 6000 years old. But i see Conservapedia is taking a stricter attitude here. I'm all in favour of it. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 12:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: What is the idea in adding joke pages (for example fixedearth) as references - I don't understand it if this site is trying to be encyclopedic one and not a joke collection!? They are parodies written about Christians. Irony and taunt. And even better joke if someone takes it as earnestly written. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 13:42, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well to be fair, I thought [[YEC]] was a parody of Christian beliefs until I did some research on it. Geocentrism doesn't sound that much more implausible to me. --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism to Geocentric Theory==
You managed to cut out all of my well-researched and highly-relevant material from the article without any comment whatsoever. I consider this to be vandalism. If this behaviour continues I shall report this to a SySop. [[User:OfficerDibble]].

==Reversions==
WILL YOU DISCUSS THIS INSTEAD OF JUST UNDOING????

Peace Pact. If you want to make reversions, propose them on the Talk page. I know I have one other person who is editing who will support my point of view.

==Wiki-Conservapedia?==

Can I point out that the reason the Conservapedia was set up in the first place was that some conservative views were being sidelined by an obviously liberal organ because those views did not concur whith the majority. Your revert of the [[Geocentric Theory]] page then protection of it clearly demonstrates that the are some conservative elements who are quilty of the same crime that Wikipedia is accused of. [[User:OfficerDibble]]

I have made my points, and have to log off now. I shall attempt to reformulate these ideas in a different form. The points i am tying to make in the GeoCentric Article are twofold:
# The view of whether the earth, the sun, the moon, Ceres or for that matter any other body is a starionary object at the centre of the universe is a matter of scientific convention. The Laws of Gravity and relativity can, in principle be reformulated to ake this happen. Thsi is a sceintific FACT, not a speculation. The fact that we don't do this is a matter of convention and parsimony, due to Occam's Razor, combined with the fact that the exlanatory schema imposed by Heliocentrism has a certain elegance. i.e. it makes the math easier. David Deutsch's book confirms this position. It is a PHiliosophiucal View, therefore and not a scientific one.
#There are groups of people who hold that the Bible says that GeoCentricisnm is correct, and is supported by biblical text. An article on Geocentricism should include material about these people, their beliefs and how these are squared with current scientific evidnce.

Ypu are just removing this without discussion, and my point is that this is no way to behave. [[User:OfficerDibble]]

: You are barking up the wrong tree. The article already makes these points. I have protected the article so that any changes can be discussed on the Talk page, and to allow you to calm down. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:46, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Homophobia ==
I'd like to see a comprehensive list of specific reasons why you reverted on the talk page ASAP. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 19:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: I already did, before you posted your request. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:47, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[Conservapedia:AFD Homophobia]]==
Need some support, please. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:59, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==[[Agnosticism]]==
Good clarification. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:51, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Notice ==

Please read this: [[New Sysops Training Page]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:26, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== McCarthy article ==
I have a great deal of Senator McCarthy information that I would like to add. Can you please allow me to make edits to that page? I would be happy to do a mock-up for you to inspect prior to allowing edits of the McCarthy page. Please let me know. Thank you. --11:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)[[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]]

: Go ahead propose something on the Talk page. My main purpose there was to make sure that the criticisms were specific and documented. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::I haven't checked out the conservapedia article on McCarthy yet, but you might get a chuckle out of [[User:HeartOfGold/MythOfMcCarthyism|MythOfMcCarthyism]] in my user space. You've probably read the book, but if not, it is good. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Blog ==

"''Mr. Right, It Turns Out, Does Not...''". Just wanted you to know I came across that, and got a chuckle out of it. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:48, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Gonzales statement is not controversial ==

Hello. Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Habeas_corpus&diff=171451&oldid=171414 this]...I am the person who added that section title. However, upon reflection, I agree, that Gonzales's statement is not controversial. The implication is controversial to me, and probabably many others on the left and the right, but he is technically correct.

Habeas Corpus was such an important individual "right" (really, specified as ''privilege'' in the constitution) that it is one of the few individual rights/privileges mentioned in the Constitution. Personally, as a conservative who believes in the rule of law, I ''do'' think the Gonzales's implication is controversial, but this is my opinion, and you were right to revert it. (Mind you, I am not one to think that Habeas Corpus applies to enemy combatants held in Cuba--rather, I do fear the day they take away the right to petition for habeas corpus of U.S. citizens held by U.S. officials)...Could you imagine if Hillary decides to make use of or expand upon Gonzales's statements? [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big>HeartOfGold]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 23:07, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::You're a bit late for that--just ask Jose Padilla. Habeas Corpus is now obsolete in the USA, and the Democrats aren't too likely to be inclined to put the toy away when they get to play with it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Global warming

2007-05-22T03:09:18Z

Gulik3: /* The Economics of Global Warming */

'''Global warming''' is the term ascribed to an increase in the [[global mean temperature]]. Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen just over one degree since 1850.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref>

Assessments by the [[United Nations]] promote the view that most of the warming since around 1850 is likely human-caused. In February, 2007, the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], a body of scientists<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704280477apr29,1,4275902.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</ref> established by the [[United Nations]], released their fourth assessment report on climate change. That report concluded that most of recent global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm</ref>. It says that increases in atmospheric concentrations of [[greenhouse gas]]es cause warming.

According to evolutionary scientists, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle.

==The Hockey Stick Reconstruction==
[[Image:Hockey stick chart ipcc.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Hockey Stick graph in 2001 IPCC report shows blue proxy values along the "shaft" with red instrumental values superimposed as the "blade"]]
One of the main arguments for anthropogenic global warming during the 3rd IPCC report was a temperature reconstruction done by climatologist Michael Mann. The resulting graph of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is shaped like a hockey stick, and it is used as evidence for the unusualness of the earth's temperature in the past few decades. However, Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick later discovered a serious flaw in the statistical methods used to construct the hockey stick graph. Because of this, the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC included several different temperature reconstruction methods instead of favoring just one hypothesis.

==Natural variability of the climate system==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Global Warming on other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

==Politics of global warming==

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the second half of the 20th Century, and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in [[carbon dioxide]] and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

58% of the 279 climate scientists working at US federal agences who responded to a survey by The Union of Concerned Scientists reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years and that they had experienced at least one of these constraints:
* “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications.
* Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”.
* Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings.
* “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”.
* “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”.
* “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

However, those who believe that either global warming is not a real phenomenon or that humanity's contribution to it has been overstated have made similar complaints. The UCS states in its report about the IPCC <ref> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html </ref>
<blockquote>Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues. Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a difficult position to defend. </blockquote>
<blockquote> Furthermore, according to IPCC principles, lead authors are “required to record views in the text which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view.”</blockquote>

There is widely held belief among the American public that global warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of global warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that global warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority (8%) believe that global warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

== The Economics of Global Warming ==

Global Warming is apparently broadly believed in by insurance companies<ref>[http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/08/22/PM200608222.html Marketplace: Global warming insurance]</ref>, who have a great deal to lose if they guess incorrectly about future natural disasters. <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1013/p01s01-usec.html Christian Science Monitor: New combatant against global warming: insurance industry]</ref>

The industry most opposed{{fact}} to the global warming hypothesis is the fossil-fuel industry, such as the Exxon-Mobil sponsored <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9</ref>[[American Enterprise Institute]], which offered $10,000 to scientists and journalists willing to dispute global-warming studies.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11 Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study]</ref>

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm Global warming smear targets]
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]

==Critique of the Hokey Stick Reconstruction==
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by [[Michael Mann]]
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.

==References==

<references/>

[[category:earth science]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-22T03:08:04Z

Gulik3: /* AEI and Exxon-Mobil */

Talk:Prostitution

2007-05-22T03:07:06Z

Gulik3:

Surely [Leviticus]] 21 is not the only Old Testament prohibition against prostitution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:So go find some others. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:07, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Prostitution

2007-05-22T03:06:44Z

Gulik3: There's no biblical evidence the woman Jesus saved then was Mary Magdalene.

'''Prostitution''' is the exchange of [[sex]]ual favors for [[money]]. The [[Bible]] in general holds prostitution in contempt, but [[Jesus Christ]] showed considerably more understanding, saving an adultress from stoning by a mob stating "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her". Also, [[Rahab]] the [[harlot]] is redeemed for receiving two [[espionage|spies]] from [[Joshua]] and allowing them to escape their pursuers.

In certain other [[religion]]s such as [[Hinduism]] and the historical worship of [[Aphrodite]] prostitution formed an integral part of the sacred rites.

In the [[United States]], prostitution is legal in the state of [[Nevada]] but heavily regulated, and outlawed elsewhere. [[Libertarian]]s consider prostitution to be a [[victimless crime]] on the order of using recreational [[drug]]s.

== Prostitution in the Old Testament ==

In the Law of Moses, prostitution is forbidden to the daughters of priests in the Aaronic order and it is forbidden for priests to marry a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9, 14).

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-05-22T03:04:53Z

Gulik3: /* AEI and Exxon-Mobil */

Global warming

2007-05-22T02:58:13Z

Gulik3:

'''Global warming''' is the term ascribed to an increase in the [[global mean temperature]]. Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen just over one degree since 1850.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref>

Assessments by the [[United Nations]] promote the view that most of the warming since around 1850 is likely human-caused. In February, 2007, the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], a body of scientists<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704280477apr29,1,4275902.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</ref> established by the [[United Nations]], released their fourth assessment report on climate change. That report concluded that most of recent global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm</ref>. It says that increases in atmospheric concentrations of [[greenhouse gas]]es cause warming.

According to evolutionary scientists, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle.

==The Hockey Stick Reconstruction==
[[Image:Hockey stick chart ipcc.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Hockey Stick graph in 2001 IPCC report shows blue proxy values along the "shaft" with red instrumental values superimposed as the "blade"]]
One of the main arguments for anthropogenic global warming during the 3rd IPCC report was a temperature reconstruction done by climatologist Michael Mann. The resulting graph of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is shaped like a hockey stick, and it is used as evidence for the unusualness of the earth's temperature in the past few decades. However, Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick later discovered a serious flaw in the statistical methods used to construct the hockey stick graph. Because of this, the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC included several different temperature reconstruction methods instead of favoring just one hypothesis.

==Natural variability of the climate system==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Global Warming on other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

==Politics of global warming==

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the second half of the 20th Century, and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in [[carbon dioxide]] and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

58% of the 279 climate scientists working at US federal agences who responded to a survey by The Union of Concerned Scientists reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years and that they had experienced at least one of these constraints:
* “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications.
* Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”.
* Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings.
* “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”.
* “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”.
* “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

However, those who believe that either global warming is not a real phenomenon or that humanity's contribution to it has been overstated have made similar complaints. The UCS states in its report about the IPCC <ref> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html </ref>
<blockquote>Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues. Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a difficult position to defend. </blockquote>
<blockquote> Furthermore, according to IPCC principles, lead authors are “required to record views in the text which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view.”</blockquote>

There is widely held belief among the American public that global warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of global warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that global warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority (8%) believe that global warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

== The Economics of Global Warming ==

Global Warming is apparently broadly believed in by insurance companies<ref>[http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/08/22/PM200608222.html Marketplace: Global warming insurance]</ref>, who have a great deal to lose if they guess incorrectly about future natural disasters. <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1013/p01s01-usec.html Christian Science Monitor: New combatant against global warming: insurance industry]</ref>

The industry most opposed{{fact}} to the global warming hypothesis is the fossil-fuel industry, such as the Exxon-Mobil sponsored <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9</ref>[[American Enterprise Institute]] offering $10,000 to scientists and journalists willing to dispute global-warming studies.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11 Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study]</ref>

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm Global warming smear targets]
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]

==Critique of the Hokey Stick Reconstruction==
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by [[Michael Mann]]
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.

==References==

<references/>

[[category:earth science]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Talk:Michael Moore

2007-05-22T02:55:30Z

Gulik3: /* POlitics requires a minimum of brains? */

{{protect|TK}}

== Please note edits! ==

When making an edit, always note what it is exactly you did. Synopsis. Summary. Thank you! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Would be happy to do that, but the thing is, the page seams to be locked like so many other pages here. Change i would have liked to make was to remove the ideological claim that all his documentaryes where "pseudo-documentaryes". I hope that SYSOP:s would read the articles and remove this kind of clearly opinionated sentences before locking the pages. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Your ideas, Timppeli, is exactly why it is locked, because they are not accurate. Moore does not make conventional documentaries, and as such, it is a misnomer to label them that way. I was the one who locked it. This is not Wikipedia. We do not engage in "double-speak" or label clearly propagandist efforts as documentaries. What Moore does is mix polemics, propaganda and the documentary styles together. While clearly he includes factual data, he also extrapolates, adds conjecture that comes from dubious sources, and mixes it with his own rather extreme leftist POV, all without any disclaimers in the credits.--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hahaha, Moore isn't an "extreme leftist", I am. He's about in the center between you and I. The middle of the road is the yellow line in the center, not the white one on the right hand side. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, they're lefties. Moore is a centrist, populist good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Has there ever been a political documentary which the other side with difrent opinnions havent claimed to be propagandist? There is allready a critisism section on the article, and thats fine, but to outright label the documents pseudo-documentaryes is not neutral in any way. What by the way are my ideas? i happen to disagree Mr Moore on several things allso. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, let us start with the fact he doesn't even label them "political documentaries". And I missed the "rule" that says we are neutral, would you point me to it? What I posted above is fact. Documentarians decry Moore, and don't respect him. But he is good at what he does, and highly successful. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Don't know where to start from... You seriously think that war in Irak, president Bush, gun controll and the the "war on terrorism" arent political issues? Ill just list some sites referring to Moores documentaryes as political documentaryes: [http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/multimedia/tp/aatpdocfilms.htm] [http://www.movie-vault.com/articles/DPVbuRTELEzZFOdb] [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/147/report_display.asp] [http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/insideindies/infocus/truthorfaction/index.html] I really wonder how anyone could claim that his documentaryes arent political on nature, not atleast without an clear agenda to discredit him. What comes to neutrality of this site, how about some quates from the rules: " Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." " Everything you post must be true and verifiable." So, i ask you, isn't labeling Michael Moores documentaryes as pseudo-documentaryes an opinnion that is mostly held by people who allso are against his political ideas? And there for against the rules. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:And now i am speechles. No arguments why your answer is no? I think this is clearly against the rules and no way of making an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::*You asked, I answered. This isn't Wikipedia, or a debating society. I don't engage editors in endless discussion, as there is no point to it. Try to free your mind from your experience at other wiki's. :-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

...I'm sorry, at what point exactly did you not only get to decide that Moore's films aren't documentaries but the right to be smug about it too? I can only find one definition that suggests a documentary is obligated to be unbiased toward one viewpoint, but what all the definitions I've found agree on is that documentary films basically source all the footage contained within them as either coming from previous recordings of the news or Cspan or whatnot, or coming from the directors filming, and all footage is nonfiction. In F911 f'rinstance, Moore shows footage of himself interviewing senators, and other footage he did not film, but all footage was, inarguable, non-fiction, since the events depicted did happen. Moore's commentary supposes links between events that may (very very very likely) not have happened at all, but the premises of his suppositiong come from the documented non-fiction sources. I have to imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a definition of "Documentary" that doesn't have that core of non-fiction (probably the reason why you provide none). For you, therefore, to contradict this definition in order to use terms like pseudo-documentary (so Bush didn't say "Bring em on"?) is, in fact, your insertion of opinion, and for you to dispute the definition of "Documentary" is equally unsourced. You are violating two of this sites "commandments."

As such, however, I realize that you will recieve no reprimand, no mention from a higher up, in fact you're probably already being considered for the Presidential medal of freedom. I don't imagine that my calm and rational explanation of what rules youve broken and how youve done it will even manage to convince you that you're wrong about a blessed thing, and will only serve to get me banned again for pointing out things the site does not want pointed out.

Also, Michael Moore is fat. This is a central complaint lobbed against him by most of his critics. It is unfair of the article not to acknowledge this. Please make mention of how fat Michael Moore is.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I forgot that part. Corrected: Moore is a centrist, populist, '''''fat''''' good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. Man is he ever fat. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hmmmm, maybe your arguments are better suited here: [http://www.afi.com/] I do agree, however, that you have been fairly calm. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::What do you mean by that? The AFI considers Moore a documentatian. Thats what his academy award was for, isnt it?

::*Well, they also gave an award to Al Gore. After he was post-facto made a producer of the film, or whatever it was that was going to disqualify his appearing on stage. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Fine, whatever, but my point is that the films themselves is considered a documentary. Inventing a term like Pseudo-documentary to describe it evokes films like Spinal Tap and Best in Show which are entirely fictive. You can dispute his methods and his logic, and lord knows half the people here already dispute his motives, but every piece of footage in his films is non-fiction. Disproportionally distorted nonfiction, perhaps, but nonfiction the same. Look, come from the other side, what would have to be different about his films for you to concede that they are actually documentaries? It cant be bias, all documentaries have a point to make, social, political or otherwise, and it cant even be distortion since any presentation of facts is going to play up some over others, so what then?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I enjoyed several of his films, FYI. Roger and Me, I actually own. However, legitimate footage, edited and altered to depict events that never happened as he said, when he said they happened, well that is fiction. Your moral compass seems a bit off, and I would have it checked. A lie, by any other name, is still a lie, no? Gently, nicely, ''respectfully'', I tell you that the matter is now considered closed. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::I tell you that it is not because with your narrowing criteria you've defined away the entirety of documentary filmmaking. You may as well say that March of the Pengiuns "Lies" by pretending that Morgan Freeman's voice is present everywhere in the antarctic. Thats the image it projects after all, if you want to argue that the film is factual. Isn't that a lie? Doesn't that disqualify it as a documentary?
::While I concede that, as you say, Moore does have a problem with depicting events as happening differently than they may have, it is done only for the same reason any documentarian makes any film at all, which is to argue a point. If he's incorrect, even consciously so, that's as it may be, but he is not as a result making a work of fiction, or a pseudo-documentary. Something like "Death of a President" that uses actual footage of GWBush to pretend he was assassinated and filming people's reaction to it, that can be called a pseudo-documentary since its presenting a central point which is entirely fictive, and acknowledged so by the filmmakers. However, though you may disagree with the central thesis of, for instance, F911, that doesnt make the film a work of fiction.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Please Fix==

This "paragraph": "Before producing Moore" Also, why did the line about him being an outspoken critic of Bush get removed? It's actually something he is famous for, even among those who do not know his work. Or, should I say, infamous? Hey, you can even say "reviled" if you want. But I'd say, put it back in. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:13, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Are you kidding? ==

That picture is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and to portray this as "just another image" is indulging in ridiculous, childish games. Please, if you even have the pretense of being "trustworthy" choose an image that looks like the person and not just catching them in an off-guard moment, or speaking, or eating, or whatever you choose to make people look silly. Otherwise, all you are doing is engaging in propaganda. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I can see your request for Sysop is right on track! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::I uploaded a picture of Michael Moore that could ease the tension on this discussion page. The picture is at image:Michael-Moore.jpg --[[User:Element|Element]] 20:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you, Element for the kindness and reasoned response/request! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Moore High School Photo==
[[Image:Mmoore.png|right|thumb|Michael Moore's high school yearbook photo.]]

== Why the second photo? ==

The article's kinda short, does it really necessitate a second photo? Also, the caption is subjective, since Ranting is kind of a POV term, and really we don't know when or where the photo was taken either. For all we know he's singing Carry On My Wayward Son. If the photo's going to be kept (in a, preferably, longer article if at all) the caption should either say when/where it was taken, or just say "Michael Moore in an unflattering pose because his mouth is open and that is funny, him being fat and all. Teh Lulz!!!11!"
--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scare quotes and use of pseudo-documentary ==
I'm no fan of Michael Moore's, but using the quotes around "documentary" and writing "pseudo-documentary" in the article are needlessly pejorative. A documentary doesn't have to be purely factual, and it doesn't have to be have completely undisputed accuracy. People kibitzed about "Waco: Rules of Engagement" and about the nature facts presented in "March of the Penguins," but those are both obviously documentaries. Since you've already got a section in about factual disputes in his articles, why not clear out the stuff that takes the article from impartial to snide? [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
: Michael Moore presented his "information" as definitive fact. This places him well within the bounds of reasonable scrutiny and criticism. Even minor inconsistencies (including information later validated) that he would not have been privy to are unacceptable. Placing documentary within quotations provides all the information required to illustrate the doubt cast on his claims. Conservapedia proclaims conciseness and this is an apt and just oppurtunity to provide us with some. Having an entire section devoted to "liberoganda" backpedalling and weak attempts to legitimize his controversial films would be a clear instance of bias. It would serve no purpose other than one-sided filler material. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::But then you're pre-emptively judging his next film Sicko without even knowing what it claims by putting the word Documentary in "Sarcastic quotes". Yes, he should be, and is, scrutinized for what he says, but so then is everything. As brainslug says, people will always claim that documentaries present inaccurate facts or interpretations, but whatever the results of such scrutinous challenges, this doesnt make them not documentaries. Its enough to say, as the article does, that people challenge his claims without having to invent a word like "pseudo-documentary" (a term which seems to apply to ficticious movies like Spinal Tap) to describe a movie that the site finds disagreeable.
::--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:: In addition to what Rex said above, we already have a small paragraph in which he's accused of using deceit and so on. We might as well expand that. More facts are better than fewer facts; speaking in detail about his errors is better than insinuating without detail. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Default sort ==

Please add <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Moore, Michael}}</nowiki> to the article before the categories. The article is locked. Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 02:32, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

*I did, but wish I knew why we do this...--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:52, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== POlitics requires a minimum of brains? ==
I can conclude from this that RobS knows NOTHING about politics, and has never met an actual politician. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 22:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:Be careful with your accusations. Andy once ran for office. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 22:35, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::It's not an accusation, it's a simple statement. Categroizing Michael Moore as a "political person" is an insult to people who generally are informed, and are concerned about public policy, and public discourse. I'm not sure "satirist" would apply, and if so, not a very good one. "Comedian" might offend real comedians, too. Perhaps "film maker" or some such garbage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Political people can be buffoons, too. Sometimes it seems like a job requirement. OTOH, I guess Rush Limbaugh isn't listed as a "Political Person", either. But I get the impressing Moore '''is''' informed and concerned--he just happens to think Conservatives are doing a terrible job. Oh, and he's fat, so there's no point in listening to him. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 22:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Global warming

2007-05-22T02:37:33Z

Gulik3:

'''Global warming''' is the term ascribed to an increase in the [[global mean temperature]]. Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen just over one degree since 1850.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F]in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref>

Assessments by the [[United Nations]] promote the view that most of the warming since around 1850 is likely human-caused. In February, 2007, the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], a body of scientists<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704280477apr29,1,4275902.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</ref> established by the [[United Nations]], released their fourth assessment report on climate change. That report concluded that most of recent global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm</ref>. It says that increases in atmospheric concentrations of [[greenhouse gas]]es cause warming.

There have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle.

==The Hockey Stick Reconstruction==
[[Image:Hockey stick chart ipcc.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Hockey Stick graph in 2001 IPCC report shows blue proxy values along the "shaft" with red instrumental values superimposed as the "blade"]]
One of the main arguments for anthropogenic global warming during the 3rd IPCC report was a temperature reconstruction done by climatologist Michael Mann. The resulting graph of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is shaped like a hockey stick, and it is used as evidence for the unusualness of the earth's temperature in the past few decades. However, Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick later discovered a serious flaw in the statistical methods used to construct the hockey stick graph. Because of this, the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC included several different temperature reconstruction methods instead of favoring just one hypothesis.

==Natural variability of the climate system==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Global Warming on other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

==Politics of global warming==

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the second half of the 20th Century, and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in [[carbon dioxide]] and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

58% of the 279 climate scientists working at US federal agences who responded to a survey by The Union of Concerned Scientists reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years and that they had experienced at least one of these constraints:
* “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications.
* Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”.
* Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings.
* “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”.
* “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”.
* “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

However, those who believe that either global warming is not a real phenomenon or that humanity's contribution to it has been overstated have made similar complaints. The UCS states in its report about the IPCC <ref> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html </ref>
<blockquote>Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues. Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a difficult position to defend. </blockquote>
<blockquote> Furthermore, according to IPCC principles, lead authors are “required to record views in the text which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view.”</blockquote>

There is widely held belief among the American public that global warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of global warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that global warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority (8%) believe that global warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

== The Economics of Global Warming ==

Global Warming is apparently broadly believed in by insurance companies, who have a great deal to lose if they guess incorrectly about future natural disasters. <ref>[http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/08/22/PM200608222.html Marketplace: Global warming insurance]</ref><ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1013/p01s01-usec.html Christian Science Monitor: New combatant against global warming: insurance industry]</ref>

The industry most opposed to the Global Warming Hypothesis is, unsurprisingly, the fossil-fuel industry, such as the Exxon-Mobil sponsored [[American Enterprise Institute]] offering $10,000 to scientists and journalists willing to dispute global-warming studies.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11 Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study]</ref>

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm Global warming smear targets]
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]

==Critique of the Hokey Stick Reconstruction==
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by [[Michael Mann]]
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.

==References==

<references/>

[[category:earth science]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Talk:Michael Moore

2007-05-22T02:19:22Z

Gulik3:

Talk:Scientific method

2007-05-22T02:16:32Z

Gulik3: /* Distinct from Scientific theory */

An example of an excellent, useful article. Will it be deleted for failing one of ASchlafly's tests? I ask not to be a pain, but because accepting this entry should cause the rejection of a large percentage of articles currently here.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:It won't be deleted, if I have any say in the matter. But item #3 is incomplete and has a poor example.

==Poverty of this definition==

Totally diagaree. This is a very inadequate section, which does not at all address what the scientific method actually does , or tries to do, not the depth of verifiability required in accepting theory. Compare what is written here with the Wikipedia entry:

''Elements of scientific method''
There are multiple ways of outlining the basic method shared by all of the fields of scientific inquiry. The following examples are typical classifications of the most important components of the method on which there is very wide agreement in the [[scientific community]] and among [[Philosophy of science|philosophers of science]], each of which are subject only to marginal disagreements about a few very specific aspects.

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="attention" style="background-color: #FFFCE6; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa;">
The scientific method involves the following basic facets:
* '''Observation'''. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

* '''Description'''. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

* '''Prediction'''. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

* '''Control'''. Actively and fairly sampling the range of ''possible'' occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

* '''Falsifiability''', or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: ''All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof''. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

* '''Causal explanation'''. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions.{{Who|Date=March 2007}} Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:

:* '''Identification of causes'''. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
:* '''Covariation of events'''. The hypothesized causes must [[correlate]] with observed effects.
:* '''Time-order relationship'''. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.
</div>

The following is a more thorough description of the method. This set of methodological elements and organization of procedures will in general tend to be more characteristic of natural sciences and experimental psychology than of disciplines commonly categorized as social sciences. Among the latter, methods of verification and testing of hypotheses may involve less stringent mathematical and statistical interpretations of these elements within the respective disciplines. Nonetheless the cycle of hypothesis, verification and formulation of new hypotheses will tend to resemble the basic cycle described below.
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="attention" style="background-color: #FFFCE6; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa;">
The essential elements of a scientific method are [[iteration]]s, [[recursion]]s, [[interleaving]]s, and [[Partially ordered set|orderings]] of the following:
*[[#Characterizations|Characterizations]] (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
*[[#Hypothesis development|Hypotheses]] (theoretical, hypothetical [[explanation]]s of observations and measurements)
*[[#Predictions from the hypothesis|Predictions]] ([[reasoning]] including [[logic]]al [[deduction]] from [[hypothesis]] and [[theory]])
*[[#Experiments|Experiments]] ([[Experiment|test]]s of all of the above) </div>

An alternative way to explain scientific method is the "operational":
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="attention" style="background-color: #FFFCE6; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa;">
The essential elements of a scientific method are [[operation]]s, [[observation]]s, [[scientific modeling|model]]s, and a [[utility function]] for evaluating models.
*[[Operation]] - Some action done to the system being investigated
*[[Observation]] - What happens when the operation is done to the system
*[[Scientific_modeling|Model]] - A [[fact]], [[hypothesis]], [[theory]], or the phenomenon itself at a certain moment
*[[Utility_function|Utility Function]] - A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control, and of the cost of use of it

One of the elements of any scientific utility function is the [[Scientific_modeling|refutability]] of the model. Another is its [[simplicity]], on the [[Principle of Parsimony]] also known as [[Occam's Razor]].</div>

I would suggest that what is required her is either to use a reference to Wikipedia OR to incorparate some of these elements.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 15:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Uncle Ed's two cents ==

Has anyone seen this 4-step formulation?

*Proper scientific methodology usually requires four steps:
*#Observation. Objectivity is very important at this stage.
*#The inducement of general [[hypotheses]] or possible explanations for what has been observed. Here one must be imaginative yet [[logic]]al. [[Occam's Razor]] should be considered but need not be strictly applied: ''Entia non sunt multiplicanda'', or as it is usually paraphrased, the simplest hypothesis is the best. Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
*#The [[deduction]] of [[corollary]] assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true. Specific testable [[prediction]]s are made based on the initial hypothesis.
*#Testing the hypothesis by investigating and confirming the deduced [[implication]]s. [[Observation]] is repeated and data is gathered with the goal of confirming or [[falsifying]] the initial hypothesis.
*[[Pseudoscience]] often omits the last two steps above. [http://www.catchpenny.org/patho.html]

The difference between this 4-step process and what the article says, is that this one recommends drawing [[conclusion]]s from the hypothesis. The [[scientist]] then compares each conclusion with the facts. Any facts which contradict a conclusion invalidate the hypothesis.

Logically, it works like this:

*Hypothesis: the [[moon]] is made of green cheese.
*#If this is true, then the [[spectrum]] of light coming from the moon should match the spectrum for green cheese.
*#[[Astronomer]] X did a spectral analysis of [[moonlight]] and found that it did not match green cheese.
*#Therefore, the hypothesis is untrue.

If you want an example that isn't so light-hearted, we could list the [[criteria]] used by medical [[researcher]]s to determine whether a particular [[germ]] causes a [[disease]]. Such factors as:
*Does the disease ever occur without the presence of the germ (or at least [[antibodies]] indicating its presence)?
*Does the germ ever appear without the disease manifesting? If so, how much? Is there a [[threshold]]?

I think this was used in determining whether ''[[e. coli]]'' [[bacteria]] in [[water]] makes people sick.

Sorry I don't have all the details at hand - I'm not a card-carrying scientist - but I think I've captured the essentials. Can we work together as "[[science writer]]s" to fix up the [[Conservapedia:article|article]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

----
It has been nearly 3 weeks, and '''none''' of the writers clamoring and carping about the supposed "bias" of this site re: [[theory of evolution]] have bothered to comment on [[scientific methodology]] here. Does this mean that evolution is indeed a matter of [[dogma]] to them, as [[Ann Coulter]] claims in ''[[Godless]]''?

[[Psychology]] studies invisible events which cannot be measured by any "[[natural]]" means. We can only ask people to report to us, in their own words, what they were thinking or feeling. Yet it is considered a [[science]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, it might be because we have been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements, and did not have the opportunity to contribute. :P --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 07:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::If this were true, somebody would have pointed out an example by now. I've been here 5 weeks, and ideological bans simply do not happen. Do not spread false rumors, or I will suspend your account. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, you mean like the following interchange on A.Schafly's talk page just before I was banned...

<nowiki>== Response to accusations of ideology ==</nowiki>

<nowiki>This is quite an interesting accusation. I thought that I was simply pointing out that the entry as written was deficient, in that it contained no references and seemed to present an unjustified diatribe against what the author perceived to be 'liberals'. Not knowing any liberals, myself, I would like to know where i can find such information, so as to read about them, and convince myself that the statements are true. As to defacing, I did not change ONE ITEM of text that you wrote, hence I do not consider that defacement. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:05, 20 April 2007 (EDT)</nowiki>

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 07:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
----
You were not "banned" - you are still here. To "ban" means to exclude permanently from the project. Please don't use inflammatory language.

Your account was blocked for three days because of "sarcasm". You had said that you didn't know any liberals.

Instead of engaging me here in a low-traffic area of the site, perhaps you'd like to make your points in a more prominent place, such as [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] got blocked for criticising badly sourced stuff. It doesn't take rocket science to figure that the reasons given for such blocks are just excuses to stifle criticism - they can't be found in the rules.
:[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:09, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Distinct from Scientific theory ==

Recently, this was made a redirect to [[scientific theory]] which is one stage of the scientific method. It does not talk about the method itself (observation, hypothesis, predictions, refinement, theory). If there are no objections, I intend to remove the redirect and rewrite the article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:03, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry Mtur - didn't mean to step on your toes - I saw the article had been redirected to scientific theory, which was obviously incorrect, so I wrote something for it to provide some kind of definition of the scientific method without looking at the discussion page. I expect other people will rewrite anything that looks incorrect. There should be no ideological struggles over this since an understanding of the scientific method is universally accepted by scientists, though it may be phrased differently by different people.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 16:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:Seems the only contributors to the old entry were amongst a cabal of vandals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:No toes stepped on - just that they are two distinct concepts that need distinct pages. If the old page was substandard then a new one should be written. I'm just making sure that ''I'm'' not stepping on any sensitive sysop toes by suggesting this. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
::Please go ahead. We do have some questionable material in some entries, so I just had to remove all this since the ony two contributors have been blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:35, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Wouldn't it have been better to take the time to verify the content than to delete everything? Or ask another sysop who is familiar with the material to do so? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::::That would have required intellectual effort on someone's part. How could you be so cruel as to ask that of them? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 22:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Environmental Protection Agency

2007-05-22T02:05:03Z

Gulik3: New page: Someone here sure has a bee in their bonnet. Aschlafly, do you own stock in a company that makes DDT or something? I've seen you kvetching about it on a half-dozen pages now. --~~~~~

Someone here sure has a bee in their bonnet. Aschlafly, do you own stock in a company that makes DDT or something? I've seen you kvetching about it on a half-dozen pages now. --22:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-05-22T01:36:58Z

Gulik3: /* What the #$@% */

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Landover Baptist==

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==?==

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the #$@% ==

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. [[User:Teresita|Banned User Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::She's banned? Boy, the Token Sane People are just dropping like flies around here, aren't they?
::Oh, and here's Jesus, on gays: ""
::(No typo there--Jesus said nothing against homosexuals. St. Paul did, but he seems to have been opposed to sex in general, too.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 21:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps and Religion ==

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin.
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Evolution is an unproved theory

2007-05-22T01:30:41Z

Gulik3:

This article was just a pile of falsehoods before the last two edits. I've added references to put paid to the arguments presented (common descent is not 'asummed' by scientists) and deleted the bit about unguided/guided evolution which doesn't relate to the topic on this page (add it to the appropriate page if you think conservapedia really needs it) --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 20:38, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

If you would like to improve it try to adopt a more nuteral tone. I realize that there is not a particularly nuteral tone at the moment, but please if you are going to change try to lessen the bias instead of just changing the direction thereof. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 20:49, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, the earlier article contains statemetents that are false (breaking the 1st commandment). This article is referenced and based on reality. If people want to edit it they can but surely a well referenced article dealing with these claims is better than one which is simply wrong --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 21:31, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
::You must be new here, or you'd know that Reality has an obviously Liberal bias, which is why nobody here relies on it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 21:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

This article would probably be better off in the essay section of Conservapedia. --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 21:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

:The title would certainly fit better with it being an essay, but perhaps something can be salvaged from it. Igor nz's bit about AiG's view is valid, but apart from that I'm not sure that his version is much better than the original. I'll try to remember to come back and have a go at it myself sometime. I've already written some stuff (not in article space) about evolution not being falsifiable, which may be able to go in here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:37, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Spelling and Grammar - Signs of Quality Home-Schooling ==

Ummmmm...should that not read "Evolution is an UNPROVEN theory?" [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 00:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Mischaracterization of source ==

I removed the a statement ("and in fact Popper himself asserted that evolution was a falsifiable hypothesis") and its source (Popper, K (1978). "Natural selection and the emergence of mind". Dialectica (32).) because it is apparantly an inaccurate representation of the source. Specifically, according to this [http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/popperevolution.htm site], Popper stated: "The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established." Also, in 1980, Popper hedged in his letter to New Scientist. The assertion that Popper deemed "evolution a falsifiable hypopthesis" is not backed up by Popper's 1980 works, as well as respected authors like Numbers. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 01:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I don't really care to much now the inane link from the front page of the evolution page is gone but Popper (1978) does say that particular parts of evolutionary theory are falsifiable (which is whats at question, not whether neo-darwinism completely explains evolution which your quote is about). To my mind the interesting bit is evolution is such a broad theory that finding an individual observation that would bring it all down is hard (in fact the sorts of observations that would are going against things that are just taken as facts; some organisms have more offspring that others, there is some mode of inheritence of traits from parent to offspring...). Instead lots of little hypotheses can be proposed and tested for different parts of the theory. We couldn't deal with those sorts of ideas here without introducing Lakatos' and Kuhne's philosophies of science and that becomes a very big task. --[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 20:13, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?

2007-05-22T01:28:15Z

Gulik3: /* YES */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The European colonists brought Christianity to the Americas and ended the Central American practice of [[human sacrifice]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I wonder how many people were killed to achieve this (latter) laudable aim? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

They sensibly replaced it with the human sacrifice to the concept of justice (capital punishment). The improvement here is that efforts are often made to avoid sacrificing innocent individuals. Thus the blood-lust of the population could be nurtured without arbitary victimisation of innocents. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
: North American Indians did not practice human sacrifice. [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it was definitely good for the natives. Look at how they lived before Europeans came to America. They lived in tepees and were practically naked all the time. Wouldn't you want help if you were in that situation? Thanks to our colonial ancestors, native people now have a much higher quality of life due to casinos, yet are still able to maintain some of their old ways on their reservations. It is the duty of civilized peoples to raise their inferiors up from savagery. Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" comes to mind:

:Take up the White Man’s burden—
:Send forth the best ye breed—
:Go bind your sons to exile
:To serve your captives’ need;
:To wait in heavy harness,
:On fluttered folk and wild—
:Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
:Half-devil and half-child.

--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is that sarcasm? I honestly can't tell any more.
:(Edit: Read his comment below, and now I don't think it's sarcasm. Ick.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 21:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Am I allowed to argue on both sides? I don't think this is a black and white issue.

If the reports of "smallpox blankets" and Caribbean slavery are true, then Columbus took advantage of several thousand native Americans. Also, I've heard that the native population was reduced 90% by European colonists - presumably through conquest and starvation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the point of this debate is, the question seems bit of a Trojan Horse, but I would imagine that those who survived would say no. Bringing disease, alcohol and superior firepower to wipe many of them out, then settling their land out can hardly be a good thing from their point of view. Hopefully a few of them will respond here. Of course from the colonists' point of view everything has turned out pretty good. Also European colonization of the Americas covers a very wide range of incomers and indigenous peoples so there can be no simple answer. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

No. Just look at the [[Trail of Tears]] and the [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]. I don't think after the North American Indians (who did NOT practice human sacrifice) who surivived mass slaughter, deportation, the rape of their women, the capture of their land, the deliberate and inadvertant spread of disease were thinking: and they brought us Christianity! What benevolent people! [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

My God. I cannot believe that anyone is so historically ignorant that they even could ask such a question. Let’s put it this way: If invaders raped your women, forced their religion on you, stole your land, and exposed your people to diseases that resulted in population loss of 90%, would you be OK with that? I did not think so. White man’s burden? Who asked for your help? We were just fine until you jackasses showed up.--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:I hate to ruin your liberal-taught preconceived ideas of how America was colonized, but you have been grossly misinformed. There was not nearly as much raping going on as is claimed by anti-European groups. And for the most part, at least in North America, land was not stolen. It was bought by the British/US governments from tribal leaders, but some of the tribe members refused to leave and had to be evicted or killed. And don't pretend like native tribes were having one big peacefest prior to the arrival of Europeans. The fact is that tribes had been at war with each other for centuries, committing atrocities that rivaled or even surpassed those of the colonials. Even when uniting against the so-called "invaders" would have been in their best interests, they didn't do so.
:If it wasn't for European colonization, there would still be wars between tribes going on today. You're welcome.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
DO you have any sources to back that up?--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Good to know that that rape and murder is something to be thankful for. So remember, the next time someone breaks into your home, kills you, rapes your wife, and carries your children off and sells them into slavery, you are supposed to thank them! No wonder people think conservatives are stupid and racist! They never miss a chance to prove they are!--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 15:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservateur, moral equivocation doesn't make what colonists did either helpful, good, or justified in any way. Just because some of the tribes were at war with each other, or that they commited atrocities that "rivaled or even surpassed" those of the colonists, doesn't make it alright that we devastated them with disease, took any of their lands whatsoever, and commited any acts of violence for the goal of westward conquest. The fact is, colonists were the result of their decimated population, and the loss of their tribal lands, whether through sale or force, and that has to be recognized. And even if it was our intervention that stopped their warring (though clearly, that was not the goal when we set out to expand "our" country), it cost them more than any of their tribal conflics ever did. The natives got the short end of the bargain.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 20:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Let's see... European colonists exterminated out 9/10ths of the American population, stole the survivors' land, broke just about every treaty made and did their level best to wipe out their religions. To this day, Indian reservations have just about the highest rates in the country for alcoholism and suicide. I can't imagine WHY they're not more grateful! </SARCASM> --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 21:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?

2007-05-22T01:26:20Z

Gulik3: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The European colonists brought Christianity to the Americas and ended the Central American practice of [[human sacrifice]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I wonder how many people were killed to achieve this (latter) laudable aim? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

They sensibly replaced it with the human sacrifice to the concept of justice (capital punishment). The improvement here is that efforts are often made to avoid sacrificing innocent individuals. Thus the blood-lust of the population could be nurtured without arbitary victimisation of innocents. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
: North American Indians did not practice human sacrifice. [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it was definitely good for the natives. Look at how they lived before Europeans came to America. They lived in tepees and were practically naked all the time. Wouldn't you want help if you were in that situation? Thanks to our colonial ancestors, native people now have a much higher quality of life due to casinos, yet are still able to maintain some of their old ways on their reservations. It is the duty of civilized peoples to raise their inferiors up from savagery. Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" comes to mind:

:Take up the White Man’s burden—
:Send forth the best ye breed—
:Go bind your sons to exile
:To serve your captives’ need;
:To wait in heavy harness,
:On fluttered folk and wild—
:Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
:Half-devil and half-child.

--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is that sarcasm? I honestly can't tell any more. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 21:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Am I allowed to argue on both sides? I don't think this is a black and white issue.

If the reports of "smallpox blankets" and Caribbean slavery are true, then Columbus took advantage of several thousand native Americans. Also, I've heard that the native population was reduced 90% by European colonists - presumably through conquest and starvation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the point of this debate is, the question seems bit of a Trojan Horse, but I would imagine that those who survived would say no. Bringing disease, alcohol and superior firepower to wipe many of them out, then settling their land out can hardly be a good thing from their point of view. Hopefully a few of them will respond here. Of course from the colonists' point of view everything has turned out pretty good. Also European colonization of the Americas covers a very wide range of incomers and indigenous peoples so there can be no simple answer. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

No. Just look at the [[Trail of Tears]] and the [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]. I don't think after the North American Indians (who did NOT practice human sacrifice) who surivived mass slaughter, deportation, the rape of their women, the capture of their land, the deliberate and inadvertant spread of disease were thinking: and they brought us Christianity! What benevolent people! [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

My God. I cannot believe that anyone is so historically ignorant that they even could ask such a question. Let’s put it this way: If invaders raped your women, forced their religion on you, stole your land, and exposed your people to diseases that resulted in population loss of 90%, would you be OK with that? I did not think so. White man’s burden? Who asked for your help? We were just fine until you jackasses showed up.--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:I hate to ruin your liberal-taught preconceived ideas of how America was colonized, but you have been grossly misinformed. There was not nearly as much raping going on as is claimed by anti-European groups. And for the most part, at least in North America, land was not stolen. It was bought by the British/US governments from tribal leaders, but some of the tribe members refused to leave and had to be evicted or killed. And don't pretend like native tribes were having one big peacefest prior to the arrival of Europeans. The fact is that tribes had been at war with each other for centuries, committing atrocities that rivaled or even surpassed those of the colonials. Even when uniting against the so-called "invaders" would have been in their best interests, they didn't do so.
:If it wasn't for European colonization, there would still be wars between tribes going on today. You're welcome.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
DO you have any sources to back that up?--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Good to know that that rape and murder is something to be thankful for. So remember, the next time someone breaks into your home, kills you, rapes your wife, and carries your children off and sells them into slavery, you are supposed to thank them! No wonder people think conservatives are stupid and racist! They never miss a chance to prove they are!--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 15:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservateur, moral equivocation doesn't make what colonists did either helpful, good, or justified in any way. Just because some of the tribes were at war with each other, or that they commited atrocities that "rivaled or even surpassed" those of the colonists, doesn't make it alright that we devastated them with disease, took any of their lands whatsoever, and commited any acts of violence for the goal of westward conquest. The fact is, colonists were the result of their decimated population, and the loss of their tribal lands, whether through sale or force, and that has to be recognized. And even if it was our intervention that stopped their warring (though clearly, that was not the goal when we set out to expand "our" country), it cost them more than any of their tribal conflics ever did. The natives got the short end of the bargain.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 20:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Let's see... European colonists exterminated out 9/10ths of the American population, stole the survivors' land, broke just about every treaty made and did their level best to wipe out their religions. To this day, Indian reservations have just about the highest rates in the country for alcoholism and suicide. I can't imagine WHY they're not more grateful! </SARCASM> --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 21:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?

2007-05-22T01:21:49Z

Gulik3: /* YES */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The European colonists brought Christianity to the Americas and ended the Central American practice of [[human sacrifice]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I wonder how many people were killed to achieve this (latter) laudable aim? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

They sensibly replaced it with the human sacrifice to the concept of justice (capital punishment). The improvement here is that efforts are often made to avoid sacrificing innocent individuals. Thus the blood-lust of the population could be nurtured without arbitary victimisation of innocents. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
: North American Indians did not practice human sacrifice. [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it was definitely good for the natives. Look at how they lived before Europeans came to America. They lived in tepees and were practically naked all the time. Wouldn't you want help if you were in that situation? Thanks to our colonial ancestors, native people now have a much higher quality of life due to casinos, yet are still able to maintain some of their old ways on their reservations. It is the duty of civilized peoples to raise their inferiors up from savagery. Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" comes to mind:

:Take up the White Man’s burden—
:Send forth the best ye breed—
:Go bind your sons to exile
:To serve your captives’ need;
:To wait in heavy harness,
:On fluttered folk and wild—
:Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
:Half-devil and half-child.

--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is that sarcasm? I honestly can't tell any more. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 21:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Am I allowed to argue on both sides? I don't think this is a black and white issue.

If the reports of "smallpox blankets" and Caribbean slavery are true, then Columbus took advantage of several thousand native Americans. Also, I've heard that the native population was reduced 90% by European colonists - presumably through conquest and starvation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the point of this debate is, the question seems bit of a Trojan Horse, but I would imagine that those who survived would say no. Bringing disease, alcohol and superior firepower to wipe many of them out, then settling their land out can hardly be a good thing from their point of view. Hopefully a few of them will respond here. Of course from the colonists' point of view everything has turned out pretty good. Also European colonization of the Americas covers a very wide range of incomers and indigenous peoples so there can be no simple answer. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

No. Just look at the [[Trail of Tears]] and the [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]. I don't think after the North American Indians (who did NOT practice human sacrifice) who surivived mass slaughter, deportation, the rape of their women, the capture of their land, the deliberate and inadvertant spread of disease were thinking: and they brought us Christianity! What benevolent people! [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

My God. I cannot believe that anyone is so historically ignorant that they even could ask such a question. Let’s put it this way: If invaders raped your women, forced their religion on you, stole your land, and exposed your people to diseases that resulted in population loss of 90%, would you be OK with that? I did not think so. White man’s burden? Who asked for your help? We were just fine until you jackasses showed up.--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:I hate to ruin your liberal-taught preconceived ideas of how America was colonized, but you have been grossly misinformed. There was not nearly as much raping going on as is claimed by anti-European groups. And for the most part, at least in North America, land was not stolen. It was bought by the British/US governments from tribal leaders, but some of the tribe members refused to leave and had to be evicted or killed. And don't pretend like native tribes were having one big peacefest prior to the arrival of Europeans. The fact is that tribes had been at war with each other for centuries, committing atrocities that rivaled or even surpassed those of the colonials. Even when uniting against the so-called "invaders" would have been in their best interests, they didn't do so.
:If it wasn't for European colonization, there would still be wars between tribes going on today. You're welcome.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
DO you have any sources to back that up?--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Good to know that that rape and murder is something to be thankful for. So remember, the next time someone breaks into your home, kills you, rapes your wife, and carries your children off and sells them into slavery, you are supposed to thank them! No wonder people think conservatives are stupid and racist! They never miss a chance to prove they are!--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 15:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservateur, moral equivocation doesn't make what colonists did either helpful, good, or justified in any way. Just because some of the tribes were at war with each other, or that they commited atrocities that "rivaled or even surpassed" those of the colonists, doesn't make it alright that we devastated them with disease, took any of their lands whatsoever, and commited any acts of violence for the goal of westward conquest. The fact is, colonists were the result of their decimated population, and the loss of their tribal lands, whether through sale or force, and that has to be recognized. And even if it was our intervention that stopped their warring (though clearly, that was not the goal when we set out to expand "our" country), it cost them more than any of their tribal conflics ever did. The natives got the short end of the bargain.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 20:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Politicization of science

2007-05-21T21:44:21Z

Gulik3: New page: I suppose getting 'abortion causes cancer' on this list is about as likely as pigs flying, right? --~~~~

I suppose getting 'abortion causes cancer' on this list is about as likely as pigs flying, right? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 17:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Superhero

2007-05-21T21:42:38Z

Gulik3: New page: A ''superhero'' is a person, usually fictional, who has some or more of the following characteristics: * superpowers not possessed by ordinary human beings * a distinctive costume and...

A ''superhero'' is a person, usually fictional, who has some or more of the following characteristics:

* [[superpower]]s not possessed by ordinary human beings
* a distinctive costume and 'nom du guerre' or 'code name'
* a willingess to use their abilities to fight evildoers

Note that some characters generally regarded as superheroes don't possess all of these traits--[[Batman]], for example, has no superpowers.

Superheroes have been a popular topic for [[comicbook]]s and [[cartoon]]s since the 1930s, when [[Superman]] first appeared in print.

Money

2007-05-21T20:58:55Z

Gulik3:

==Economic Properties of Money==

Money is defined as something which serves as a means of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account. The currency which serves as money may be backed by some tangible commodity, or may be fiat money. Alternatively, trade may be carried on using commodity pay, wherein existing commodities are assigned exchange values but not explicitly designated as money.

==Money Neutrality and the Money Market==

Money may be viewed as neutral or non-neutral regarding the real economy; it is disputed whether changes in the money market cause changes in real markets. The money market itself consists of a money supply (typically fixed for any given period) and a demand function for money. Because the quantity of money is typically exogenously given, the only variable determined in the money market is the price of money.

==The development of money==

The earliest discovered forms of money were easily-carried items with some inherent value, such as salt (used in ancient [[Rome]]) and fishhooks (American Indians). This replaced or supplemented pre-existing [[barter]] systems.

Precious metals, such as [[copper]], [[gold]], and [[silver]], have made good coins, being both easily transportable and having inherent value. In 1933, the [[United States]] abandoned the [[Gold Standard]]<ref>[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h753.html The Gold Standard]</ref>, switching over to [[Fiat Currency]], which has no inherent value beyond the government's assurance that it has value.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Economics]]

Money

2007-05-21T20:58:09Z

Gulik3:

==Economic Properties of Money==

Money is defined as something which serves as a means of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account. The currency which serves as money may be backed by some tangible commodity, or may be fiat money. Alternatively, trade may be carried on using commodity pay, wherein existing commodities are assigned exchange values but not explicitly designated as money.

==Money Neutrality and the Money Market==

Money may be viewed as neutral or non-neutral regarding the real economy; it is disputed whether changes in the money market cause changes in real markets. The money market itself consists of a money supply (typically fixed for any given period) and a demand function for money. Because the quantity of money is typically exogenously given, the only variable determined in the money market is the price of money.

==The development of money==

The earliest discovered forms of money were easily-carried items with some inherent value, such as salt (used in ancient [[Rome]]) and fishhooks (American Indians). This replaced or supplemented pre-existing [[barter]] systems.

Precious metals, such as [[copper]], [[gold]], and [[silver]], have made good coins, being both easily transportable and having inherent value. In 1933, the [[United States]] abandoned the [{Gold Standard]]<ref>[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h753.html The Gold Standard]</ref>, switching over to [[Fiat Currency]], which has no inherent value beyond the government's assurance that it has value.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Economics]]

Fred Phelps

2007-05-21T20:40:30Z

Gulik3:

[[Image:Phelps.jpg|right|thumb|Fred Phelps giving an interview in 2000]]'''Fred Phelps''' is an extremist whose rallies display signs with highly inflammatory statements. He holds to a [[Hyper-Calvinism|hyper-Calvinistic]] viewpoint which is generally regarded as far outside of mainstream Christianity by most Christian scholars. Phelps is founder and pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, [[Kansas]], most of whose congregants are related to Phelps either by blood or marriage.

Phelps has openly denounced the Catholic Church and Episcopal Church and has made claims these religious organizations tolerate and harbor homosexuals and pedophiles.

Phelps has led protests at military funerals based on his belief that America is a country that harbors homosexuals and is thus evil. As a result, President [[George W. Bush]] signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes act, which places limitations on protests at military funerals. These demonstrations led to the formation of the [[Patriot Guard]], an organization of motorcyclists who attend military funerals in order to shield the families of the deceased from the protests by representatives of Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church.

Before beginning his protests in earnest in the mid 1990s, Phelps was a contributor to the Democratic Party who helped campaign for [[Al Gore]] in 1988, when Gore's viewpoints were not as socially liberal. <ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html</ref> This proved to later be an embarrassment to Gore.

== Phelps' Criticism of Religious Leaders ==

Phelps runs several websites on the internet which preach against homosexuality and immoral living. Phelps espouses a skewed version of his own "literal" interpretation of the Bible and the holy scriptures, and speaks against mainstream religious and Christian leaders who in his view, distort or twist the literal interpretation of the Bible. Phelps also speaks for greater accountability for religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, and has been vocal in the press and media concerning the abuse of young boys by Catholic Priests and Church Leaders, and practicing homosexuals in the Episcopal Church.

==Criticism of Phelps==
Phelps has been criticized by both liberals and conservatives.
[[Jerry Falwell]] has referred to Phelps as "a first class nut". <ref>http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/stories/102498_protests.shtml</ref>

== Lawsuits and Litigation ==

Phelps and his congregation were recently sued in US District Court in Columbia by Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq. Phelps and his congregation protested the Iraq War at his son's funeral. The father is suing Phelps for defamation for stating his religious opinion that, ''. Mr. Snyder raised his son for the devil and hell ..'' during the funeral protest and in statements on his website. This litigation is currently pending.

Phelps has also been threatened with prosecution by the Canadian Government for alleged hate speech in Canada for preaching what he has stated are the literal teachings of the Bible against homosexuality.

==References==
<references/>

== Outside links ==
* [http://blank.org/addict/ Addicted to Hate: the story of Fred Phelps]

[[Category:Religious people|Phelps, Fred]]
[[Category:Cult Leaders]]

Essay:Liberal Falsehoods

2007-05-21T20:06:28Z

Gulik3: Let's follow our own rules, folks.

A major liberal falsehood of the mid-20th century was that intelligent life in outer space ''must'' exist, and that America should spend billions looking for it{{fact}}. This falsehood had political overtones in favor of nuclear disarmament, globalism, environmentalism, government spending and atheism. Political and Atheist leaders who were strong advocates that intelligent life ''must'' exist in outer space were:

[[Jimmy Carter]]{{fact}}
 [[Adolf Hitler]]{{fact}}
 [[Carl Sagan]]{{fact}}

== Other Liberal Falsehoods ==

*[[Population Bomb]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Global Warming]]
*[[Global Cooling]]

Conspiracy

2007-05-21T12:58:23Z

Gulik3: /* Notable Historical Conspiracies */

The word '''Conspiracy''' comes from the [[Latin]] "con spire", which means "to breathe together". A conspiracy is any secretive or unlawful group of people assembled for a plan.

== Types of Conspiracies ==

* [[Hub-and-spoke conspiracy]]
* [[Chain conspiracy]]
* [[Cell conspiracies]]

== Notable Historical Conspiracies ==

* the [[Illuminati]]
* [[Satanism]]
* [[Freemasonry]]
* the [[Rosicrucians]]
* the [[Knights Templar]]
* the [[Black Dragon Society]]
* the [[Hashishin]]
* [[Organized Crime]]
* the [[Yellow Turban Society]]
* the [[Skull and Bones Club]]
* the [[Bilderbergers]]

Soul

2007-05-21T12:21:56Z

Gulik3:

{{expand}}
The '''soul''' is a vital concept within many [[religion|religious]] traditions, including [[Christianity]]. The soul is considered to be the eternal element of an individual.

Most Christians regard the soul as the immortal essence of a human - the seat or locus of human [[will]], [[understanding]], and [[personality]].

Scientists generally ignore or dismiss the soul as unworthy of study, since the soul has been defined in such a way as to be incapable of being studied. To be precise, the [[methodological naturalism]] of modern science tiptoes around the concept of the soul. Anything which is not material is deliberately excluded from consideration, and as the soul is not a material thing scientists accordingly cannot study it. This has implications for the study of human [[Psychology]].

Most religions assume that the soul will survive the death of the body, and continue in some conscious fashion afterwards, whether it be in an [[afterlife]] or by [[reincarnation]]. [[Atheist]]s generally do not believe in the soul, and assume their consciousness will disappear upon death.

[[category:religion]]
[[category:philosophy]]

Soul

2007-05-21T12:21:43Z

Gulik3:

{{expand}}
The '''soul''' is a vital concept within many [[religion|religious]] traditions, including [[Christianity]]. The soul is considered to be the eternal element of an individual.

Most Christians regard the soul as the immortal essence of a human - the seat or locus of human [[will]], [[understanding]], and [[personality]].

Scientists generally ignore or dismiss the soul as unworthy of study, since the soul has been defined in such a way as to be incapable of being studied. To be precise, the [[methodological naturalism]] of modern science tiptoes around the concept of the soul. Anything which is not material is deliberately excluded from consideration, and as the soul is not a material thing scientists accordingly cannot study it. This has implications for the study of human [[Psychology]].

Most religions assume that the soul will survive the death of the body, and continue in some conscious fashion afterwards, whether it be in an [[afterlife]] or by [[reincanration]]. [[Atheist]]s generally do not believe in the soul, and assume their consciousness will disappear upon death.

[[category:religion]]
[[category:philosophy]]

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-05-21T11:56:29Z

Gulik3: /* Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual */

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Landover Baptist==

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==?==

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== What the #$@% ==

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps and Religion ==

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin.
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Fred Phelps

2007-05-21T11:51:27Z

Gulik3: /* References */

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-05-21T11:46:52Z

Gulik3:

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Landover Baptist==

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==?==

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== What the #$@% ==

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps and Religion ==

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin.
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Feminism

2007-05-21T07:24:38Z

Gulik3:

Feminism is a philosophy which argues for equal treatment and responsibilities for men and women, and boys and girls.

==History==

Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900's and the [[Women's Liberation]] (or "Second Wave Feminist") movement of the 1960's and 1970's.

An [[Equal Rights Amendment]] was proposed in the US in 1972, but was not ratified. Opponents of the amendment cited the following consequences: making girls subject to the military draft; the integration of single-sex schools; the possible recognition of homosexual marriage; and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, like factory or mining work.

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of [[Post-Feminism]] which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized in everyday life, often by women themselves, and in the American legal structure. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently enshrined in American law, including the legal right to [[abortion]]. This stance is opposed by many conservatives, leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Femi-nazis" to refer to feminist supporters of abortion rights. As of April 2007, women in the US have a legal right to abortion, with limitations in some cases. According to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor abortion being legal in all cases, and 39% favor abortion being legal in most cases. 31% feel that abortion should be illegal in most cases and 12% believe it should be illegal in all cases. 2% are unsure on the issue. <ref>http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm</ref>

Second Wave Feminism has made a resurgence in 1990s and early years of 21st century as the movement is spreading internationally in [[Asia]] and the [[Middle East]]. During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]] these latter-day feminists overlooked President Clinton's apparently womanizing behavior in order to focus upon his attempts to procure federal funding for several of their causes.

==Biblical View==
The Bible makes it clear in several places that women are to be subordinate to men.

<blockquote>But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
(1 Corinthians 11:3)</blockquote>

<blockquote>Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
(Ephesians 5:22-24)</blockquote>

<blockquote>Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Colossians 3:18
</blockquote>

<blockquote>Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
1 Timothy 2:11-15</blockquote>

==Quotations==

The English novelist and critic [[Rebecca West]] said <ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rebecca_west.html</ref> :

<blockquote> "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." </blockquote>

The televangelist [[Pat Robertson]] said <ref> Fundraising letter, 1992 quoted on http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/patr.htm </ref>:

<blockquote>"The [[Feminism|feminist agenda]] is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [[abortion|kill their children]], practice [[witchcraft]], destroy capitalism, and become [[Homosexuality|lesbian]]s." <ref>Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992</ref></blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Gender equality]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Feminism

2007-05-21T07:24:00Z

Gulik3:

Feminism is a philosophy which argues for equal treatment and responsibilities for men and women, and boys and girls.

==History==

Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900's and the [[Women's Liberation]] (or "Second Wave Feminist") movement of the 1960's and 1970's.

An [[Equal Rights Amendment]] was proposed in the US in 1972, but was not ratified. Opponents of the amendment cited the following consequences: making girls subject to the military draft; the integration of single-sex schools; the possible recognition of homosexual marriage; and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, like factory or mining work.

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of [[Post-Feminism]] which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized in everyday life, often by women themselves, and in the American legal structure. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently enshrined in American law, including the legal right to [[abortion]]. This stance is opposed by many conservatives, leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Femi-nazis" to refer to feminist supporters of abortion rights. As of April 2007, women in the US have a legal right to abortion, with limitations in some cases. According to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor abortion being legal in all cases, and 39% favor abortion being legal in most cases. 31% feel that abortion should be illegal in most cases and 12% believe it should be illegal in all cases. 2% are unsure on the issue. <ref>http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm</ref>

Second Wave Feminism has made a resurgence in 1990s and early years of 21st century as the movement is spreading internationally in [[Asia]] and the [[Middle East]]. During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]] these latter-day feminists overlooked President Clinton's apparently womanizing behavior in order to focus upon his attempts to procure federal funding for several of their causes.

==Biblical View==
The Bible makes it clear in several places that women are to be subordinate to men.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
(1 Corinthians 11:3)</blockquote>

<blockquote>Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
(Ephesians 5:22-24)</blockquote>

<blockquote>Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Colossians 3:18
</blockquote>

<blockquote>Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
1 Timothy 2:11-15</blockquote>

==Quotations==

The English novelist and critic [[Rebecca West]] said <ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rebecca_west.html</ref> :

<blockquote> "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." </blockquote>

The televangelist [[Pat Robertson]] said <ref> Fundraising letter, 1992 quoted on http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/patr.htm </ref>:

<blockquote>"The [[Feminism|feminist agenda]] is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [[abortion|kill their children]], practice [[witchcraft]], destroy capitalism, and become [[Homosexuality|lesbian]]s." <ref>Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992</ref></blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Gender equality]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Feminism

2007-05-21T07:13:08Z

Gulik3:

Feminism is a philosophy which argues for equal treatment and responsibilities for men and women, and boys and girls.

==History==

Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900's and the [[Women's Liberation]] (or "Second Wave Feminist") movement of the 1960's and 1970's.

An [[Equal Rights Amendment]] was proposed in the US in 1972, but was not ratified. Opponents of the amendment cited the following consequences: making girls subject to the military draft; the integration of single-sex schools; the possible recognition of homosexual marriage; and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, like factory or mining work.

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of [[Post-Feminism]] which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized in everyday life, often by women themselves, and in the American legal structure. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently enshrined in American law, including the legal right to [[abortion]]. This stance is opposed by many conservatives, leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Femi-nazis" to refer to feminist supporters of abortion rights. As of April 2007, women in the US have a legal right to abortion, with limitations in some cases. According to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor abortion being legal in all cases, and 39% favor abortion being legal in most cases. 31% feel that abortion should be illegal in most cases and 12% believe it should be illegal in all cases. 2% are unsure on the issue. <ref>http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm</ref>

Second Wave Feminism has made a resurgence in 1990s and early years of 21st century as the movement is spreading internationally in [[Asia]] and the [[Middle East]]. During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]] these latter-day feminists overlooked President Clinton's apparently womanizing behavior in order to focus upon his attempts to procure federal funding for several of their causes.

==Quotations==

The English novelist and critic [[Rebecca West]] said <ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rebecca_west.html</ref> :

<blockquote> "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." </blockquote>

The televangelist [[Pat Robertson]] said <ref> Fundraising letter, 1992 quoted on http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/patr.htm </ref>:

<blockquote>"The [[Feminism|feminist agenda]] is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [[abortion|kill their children]], practice [[witchcraft]], destroy capitalism, and become [[Homosexuality|lesbian]]s." <ref>Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992</ref></blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Gender equality]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Communism

2007-05-21T07:11:41Z

Gulik3:

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation .]]In less than the past 100 years, '''Communism''' has claimed more than 100 million lives. Today, it continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's people. <ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>

Communism advocates the establishment of a "classless society". In actuality it is dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''. It officially prohibits one person from employing another, which leads to massive restrictions on personal freedom and economic shortages of every sort of goods and services. It does not allow for savings and investment, the ownership of private property, such as homes or cars, or even fair payment of wages and labor. Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights.

== Communism and Atheism ==
Marx coined the saying "Religion is the opium of the people" expressing his view that religion, and in particular state-endorsed religion, has been used for centuries as a form of social control by promising the downtrodden a better life in a mythical hereafter to deter them from trying to build one here and now by removing the chains of their masters and overthrowing the capitalist system that oppressed them. Karl Marx wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction." <ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>

==Theory and horror==

It is based upon a [[socialist]] economy in which the public, whether the state or other group, owns the "[[means of production]]" and in which the wealth of the nation is rationed among the Party's beneficiaries. Yet party members (there is only one Party) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the perennial shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).

Various Communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implimented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the exisitng order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in nolonger the need for any [[government]].

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," i.e. legalized theft.

Marx also coined the disparaging atheistic dictum "religion is the opium of the masses", expressing the fundemental Marxist view that the proletariat have been brainwashed by religion, and thus a ''Nomenklatura'' of ''[[enlightened]]'' party members with this [[esoteric]] knowledge and foresight are justified in enslaving the masses, for their own benefit.

== Communism and Atrocities and Repression ==

Modern communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals. <ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period. <ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes. <ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Mao</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and attrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Noble Prize]]. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.
</blockquote>

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today. <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians. <ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship." <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today. <ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Modern Communism==
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments were overthrown. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, around a quarter of the world's population still lives under Communist Party rule.

The most famous of those countries governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper.

One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs. Over 100 UN countries are still calling for an end to this highly illegal blockade of trade and services.

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideaology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marixt view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his savior who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Notable communists==

Notable communists include [[Stalin]], [[Engle]], [[Lenin]], [[Karl Marx]], [[Pol Pot]] and [[Fidel Castro]].

==See also==

[[Communism for dummies| Communism for Dummies]]

[[Nazism]]

==Notes and references==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Gun control

2007-05-21T07:10:03Z

Gulik3:

Gun control laws have been enacted at the federal, state, and local level with the intent of placing restrictions on the right of individual private citizens to own [[firearms]].

A common use of firearms is to defend one's life, though accidental death of those who are attacking often occurs. In fact,out of all guns used in the home last year, only 2% were used against an intruder. Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

'''Gun control''' is the regulation by governments of [[gun]] ownership and the right to carry, conceal, or use [[firearm]]s. Such measures can range from a total prohibition on civilian ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition to specific restrictions on certain firearm features, "waiting periods" for gun purchases, licensing of gun owners, registration of firearms, etc. Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and [[liberals]] as a remedy to [[crime]]. In fact, whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government, criminals will commit crimes, and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms. For instance, despite the prohibition of handgun ownership in the [[United Kingdom]], an island nation without any neighboring "gun culture" nations, handgun crime has been steadily increasing there for many years. As of 2005/06, the total deaths by shooting in the UK had increased to 50.<ref>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf</ref>. Comparably, the United States suffered 11,350 gun deaths in 2005.<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html</ref>However, it should be noted that the USA has a population approximately 5 times greater than the UK, <ref>http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004997.html</ref> and the number of murders by shooting is approximately 200 times higher.

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal circuits [[cour]ts of appeals]] have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html</ref>

==Overview==
The end effect of gun control laws is the reduction of gun crime.

"Gun control" is the use of legislation to place restrictions on the right to bear arms right. This can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

In the United States the three primary federal gun control laws are:
* National Firearms Act (1934)
* Gun Control Act (1968)
* Brady Bill (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).

==Objections to gun control==
Studies by John Lott and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates<ref>http://www.johnrlott.com/</ref>. [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in America even though it completely bans private handguns <ref>http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm</ref>.

After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by Congress. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070309-102401-2730r.htm</ref>

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right has been debated.

==External Links==

*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Essay:Liberal Falsehoods

2007-05-21T07:01:32Z

Gulik3: Carl Sagan was not a government leader.

A major liberal falsehood of the mid-20th century was that intelligent life in outer space ''must'' exist, and that America should spend billions looking for it. This falsehood had political overtones in favor of nuclear disarmament, globalism, environmentalism, government spending and atheism. Leaders who were strong advocates that intelligent life ''must'' exist in outer space included:

[[Jimmy Carter]]
 [[Adolf Hitler]]

== Other Liberal Falsehoods ==

*[[Population Bomb]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Global Warming]]
*[[Global Cooling]]

Siege mentality

2007-05-21T06:56:53Z

Gulik3: New page: A '''Seige Mentality''' is the mindset adopted by a political, religious, or ethnic group that they are surrounded on all sides by evil forces that want to destroy them. A seige mentality...

A '''Seige Mentality''' is the mindset adopted by a political, religious, or ethnic group that they are surrounded on all sides by evil forces that want to destroy them. A seige mentality is extremely useful for enforcing ideological purity and a sense of community, as well as providing an easy means for [[demonization]] of groups perceived as enemies.

[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:George W. Bush

2007-05-21T06:37:57Z

Gulik3:

Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game

2007-05-21T05:57:11Z

Gulik3:

'''Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games''' (MMORPGs for short) are a genre of video and computer games that involve many players logging into a server that is usually owned by the company that develops or publishes the game and playing in a virtual world. This world is persistent. (It exists even you aren't playing)

Most MMORPGs charge a monthly fee; this is necessary to maintain the expensive servers used, to hire support staff, and to develop new content. While the cost of developing a MMORPG is high the potential profit can be extraordinary as well.

== History ==

MMORPGs [[evolved]] out or [[MUD]]s, "Multiplayer Online Dungeons", text-based multiplayer online games.

== Notable MMORPGs ==
* [[Everquest]]
* [[World of Warcraft]]
* [[City of Heroes]]
* [[Ultima Online]]
* [[Anarchy Online]]
* [[Urban Dead]]
* [[Second Life]]
* [[Silk Road]]
* [[EVE]]
* [[Guild Wars]]
* [[Middle Earth Online]]

==Free MMORPGS==
*[http://www.endless-online.com/ Endless Online]
*[http://flyff.gpotato.com/ Fly for Fun]
*[http://www.gaiaonline.com/ Gaia Online]
*[http://global.goonzu.com/center/default.asp Goonzu Online]
*[http://www.gunzonline.com/ Gunz: The Duel]
*[http://www.habbo.com/ Habbo]
*[http://www.maplesea.com/ Maple Story]
*[http://fate.netgame.com/ Scions of Fate]
*[http://www.globalmuonline.com/ Mu Online]
[[Category:Games]]

Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?

2007-05-21T05:50:51Z

Gulik3:

{{debate}}

==Yes==

Altering or deleting the record of debate - even if that debate is conducted on a Users' Talk Pages - changes the story, removing voices of opinion from the thread of debate which led to the article content.

:I agree that changing the record of a debate (other than removing 'simple vandalism' or 'personal remarks' alters it to the point where it can't even be called a debate anymore. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:49, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you Ed! You give me warm glow of happiness! Your response is my simple argument in a nutshell. I have, as I have said, no problem with the idae that a site such as this should exist - of course not. But it's the idea that it actually is a collaborative 'Encyclopedia' that I have a problem with. Why not just rename the site? [[User:50something|50something]]

::Yes, deleting comments, editing comments after posting them, and removing whole sections is disingenuous. Debates are meant to bring out different view points and everything needs to be displayed to accurately allow other users to decide who to side with. When you start editing history, key points can be left out or forgotten. And, to the annoyance of some editors here who pull out the "talk page is a castle" line, when debates are deleted, topics are brought up multiple times because there's no record of them already happening. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==No==

I disagree with the idea that a [[user talk page]] is a good place to conduct a debate. Anything involving site policy, such as [[editorial direction]], should probably be given a wider venue than just one user's "castle".

If you can't get agreement with an individual user, don't waste time throwing stones at their living room window. Ask someone else (like me, I'm a "leading" sysop); create an entry in [[Debate topics]]; or appeal to Mr. Schlafly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:And I too would agree with that - debate should ideally be conducted on the discussion pages for an artcile. However, when debate spills over onto a User's Talkpage - as mine did recently with [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], the - hopefully brief - part of the record that lands there hould NOT be removed, as that user constantly does. It is closed argument, which is not part of the great tradition of this country. [[User:50something|50something]]

::Have you considered going back into the history of the talk page, and copying the thread? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I did, but he kept removing it. [[User:50something|50something]]

::What is this, Sovietpedia? This is exactly the sort of thing the USSR used to do. (And we in America wuite rightly mocked them for it.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 01:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Cult

2007-05-21T05:38:29Z

Gulik3: /* Scientology? */

I'm not sure cultwatch.com counts as a reputable source. Furthermore, the United States government recognizes the LDS church and Jehovah's witnesses as religions and neither exemplify cult like behavior. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Cultwatch is a non-profit watchdog and counseling group. I'm not sure what disqualifies them from being considered reliable. I respect your position as an administrator, though, so if you deem it unsuitable for citing, I'll find something else. As for whether JW and LDS are cults, be careful not to conflate the two usages. Both churches meet the definition of "cult" in the Christian sense of the term. They're not under the "secular usage" section for a reason. [[User:SavedByGrace|SavedByGrace]] 21:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::The usage of cult wasn't recently adopted by secularists. And this website is not here to provide "Christian definitions," but rather true and verifiable definitions. Why would Mormonism be considered a cult and Islam not? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The Conservapedia article on [[Kangaroo]] gives the Christian ''baramin'' definition in the first paragraph. Is this not a legitimate precedent? Also, as far as I can tell, Muslims do not pretend to be Christians. We would just say that they follow a false religion, not that they're cultists. [[User:SavedByGrace|SavedByGrace]] 21:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Fair enough. I do feel like listing Mormonism and Jehovah's Witness as cults is a bad idea, especially considering they are some of the most conservative people, but if you want to keep it, I think qualifying them as considered cults in the Christian sense of the word would be a good idea. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 21:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I feel that at least Mormonism should be removed from the article. I was brought up in the church and though I am no longer a member, I feel that the church is still a Christian church and in no way resembles a cult. All different christian faiths have different practises. If Mormons are to be considered a cult, why not Lutherans, or Baptists, or Anglicans, etc?[[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 22:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::I agree. I have deleted this section.
::::::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Considering what I just read on the Mormon entry on Cultwatch, I will be removing The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints because I know firsthand that that is NOT what they teach. [[User:NSmyth|Nsmyth]] 23:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nicene Creed ==

If the Nicene Creed is key to determining a cult, then are original [http://www.biblehistory.com/Baptist.html Baptists] a cult? There are some branches of the Baptist church and Lutheran church that are ''sola scriptura'' and as the Nicene Creed does not appear in the Bible, these would make those branches cults by this definition. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:43, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not a theologian or historian, but it seems their rejection of the Nicene creed was not a rejection of any of the particular statements found in it. Rather, they wished to distance themselves from any religious texts other than that which is Divinely-inspired. I should hope that all contemporary Protestant churches are ''sola scriptura'', but this just means that we don't place any doctrine or interpretation of doctrine on level with the Bible itself. On the other hand, again, looking at the creed itself--anyone who finds something disagreeable in it most likely also finds something disagreeable in the Bible. The creed isn't partisan--''within Christianity''. [[User:SavedByGrace|SavedByGrace]] 21:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Definition==
The definition seems rather narrow. It is my understanding that the etymology of the word dates it to about 1610 and was first used to describe specific (though pedestrian) veneration of Saints within Christendom.

The pejorative use of the word, I believe, only came into fashion in the last 70 years or so. But then I could be wrong. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 21:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Non-Christian cults ==

Seems to me this entry is very limited in its views:

1) It only seems to deal with [[Christian]] cults

2) It gratuitously insults major Christian denominations such as the Mormons and Jehovah's WItnesses, from among whom many conservative Christians hail

3) The stuff on the Nicene Creed is both useless and misleading.

Oddly enough, the Wikipedia has a fairly decent definition that avoids these problems:

"In religion and sociology, a cult is a term designating a cohesive group of people (generally, but not exculsively a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be outside the mainstream or reaching the point of a taboo. Its status may come about either due to its novel belief system, its idiosyncratic practices, its perceived harmful effects on members, or because it perceived opposition to the interests of the mainstream culture. Non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics."

-- sounds like a better start to me! I would also strongly urge that the "Common examples" section be removed.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 21:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'll respond to your items as you have them numbered:
:1) I agree. It's only a skeleton of an article. The secular usage section can surely be filled out more.
:2) Mormons are definitely often Conservatives (I've been a big fan of Orrin Hatch). Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, are certainly not: they're explicitly anti-political. However, this is a separate issue from what they belief spiritually. Many Muslims are conservatives, and I would not rule out voting for one running for political office. This wouldn't force me to suppress my knowledge that his religion is false, though. Likewise with Mormonism and their status as a cult.
:3) I suppose it's not absolutely necessary for inclusion in the article, but the creed is a helpful guide. It gives the reader more detailed information on what it means to say "This religion is a cult." [[User:SavedByGrace|SavedByGrace]] 22:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, I take your point. But whatever value the Nicene Creed may have in helping identify cults, this would only be valid for [[Christian]] cults. I think an entry on a broad term like this should address the question broadly, and then give more particular information later in the article.
[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 22:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I support the Boethius version of the entry, subject to further editing. I think it's the least biased and provides an example of a group widely regarded as a cult. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 23:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''Just a note''' this ''is'' up as an AfD, ([[Articles for Deletion]]). [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I submitted it for deletion based on a early entry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 23:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==How can any denomination ever start...==
...without, at its ''start,'' being "of recent origin" and small? It wouldn't start at all unless it had a difference of opinion with the existing denominations. The chances of it succeeding are low unless it has a charismatic leader, and unless it has a reasonably intense focus on winning new members.

So, it seems to me that whenever a denomination starts, it is almost certain be "of recent origin," to have a charismatic leader, and a focus on prosyletizing. The difference between that and the definition of "cult" in the article is a matter of degree.

It seems to me that most denominations must look an awful lot like a "cult" when they are starting. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:In one sense, a "cult" is just a new religious movement on its way to becoming a "sect" or "denomination". Every major religion started small, and I've heard Christianity referred to as "the cult of the Nazarene".

:My favorite dictionary definition of cult is "A religion regarded as spurious". This leads to the comment that "One man's religion is another man's cult".

:There is no objective standard capable of distinguishing a "cult" from a 'real religion'. Even within Christianity, many sects call one or more other sects "unChristian". It's common with Protestantism to distinguish between "Christians" and "Catholics" - implying that the Roman Catholic Church is non-Christian. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientology? ==

For some reason, "L Ron Hubbard" is locked, so I can't add him to Category:Cult Leaders. Why's that?