Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Crocodile

2011-11-02T02:54:48Z

LowKey: /* Morphology */ not the gavial

{{Taxonomy
|name=Crocodile
|image=Americancrocodile.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Reptilia
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=
|order=Crocodilia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=
|family=Crocodylidae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=Crocodylus Osteolaemus
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=C. acutus C. cataphractus C. intermedius C. johnsoni C. mindorensis C. moreletii C. niloticus C. novaeguineae C. palustris C. porosus C. rhombifer C. siamensis O. tetraspis
|binomialname=
|syn=
|sub=
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=
}}
'''Crocodiles''' and their close relations [[alligator]]s, [[caiman]]s and [[gavial]]s, form the family Crocodylidae. Crocodiles are found in areas of higher temperature, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, India and South-East Asia, Indonesia and Australia, and throughout tropical America. Until recently Nile crocodiles were also found throughout North Africa, and in Palestine <ref>http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Palestine#Fauna</ref>.

In the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]], crocodiles emerged in the late [[triassic]] period from early archosauromorphs, at the same time as [[dinosaur]]s and true [[mammal]]s.

=== Species of crocodile ===

*Nile crocodile ''Crocodylus niloticus'' (Africa)
*American crocodile ''Crocodylus acutus'' ([[Caribbean Sea]], including the southern [[United States]])
*Morelet's crocodile ''Crocodylus moreletii'' (Central America)
*Cuban crocodile ''Crocodylus rhombifer'' (Cuba)
*Mugger crocodile ''Crocodylus palustris'' (India)
*Estuarine crocodile ''Crocodylus porosus'' (Australia and South-East Asia)
*Johnstone's crocodile ''Crocodylus johnsoni'' (Australia)
*Siamese crocodile ''Crocodylus siamensis'' (South-East Asia)
*Philippine crocodile ''Crocodylus mindorensis'' (Philippines)
*Orinoco crocodile ''Crocodylus intermedius'' (South America)
*New Guinea crocodile ''Crocodylus novaeguineae'' (New Guinea)
*Dwarf crocodile ''Osteolaemus tetraspis'' (Sub-Saharan Africa)

== Morphology ==

The name Crocodile came in Ancient Greece, and means 'lizard'. On external appearance, crocodiles resemble large aquatic lizards. However, Crocodiles, and other members of the family Crocodylidae are among the more biologically complex reptiles. Unlike most other reptiles, the Crocodiles possess a four-chambered heart, a feature mostly shown exclusively in birds and mammals. Other features include a diaphragm-like structure, again seen mostly in birds and mammals, and a cerebral cortex - the part of the brain mostly responsible for self-conciousness and the ability to learn. The crocodile, internally, is closer to that of a bird than to lizards, despite looking strikingly similar to other reptiles.

Members of the family Crocodylidae possess streamlined bodies and webbed feet, demonstrating its largely aquatic nature. However, most Crocodilians are also well adapted for terrestrial terrains. They can for example, run (or gallop) at speeds of up to 15 kph.

== Behaviour ==

Crocodiles generally capture their prey, often large [[mammal]]s such as [[antelope]]s, by drifting close to them, motionless, then lunging and dragging their victim underwater, where it is drowned, then left to rot and soften up for later consumption.

Crocodiles typically lay their eggs in a mound of rotting vegetation; the mother will guard the nest from marauding [[iguana]]s and other egg-thieves, and solicitously adjust the depth to which the eggs are buried. When the baby crocodiles hatch, she will carry them to the water in her mouth. Hatchlings are precocial (able to fend for themselves at birth), though they stay with the mother for some time after hatching.

Many crocodiles [[aestivation|aestivate]] during summer.

== Crocodile Products ==

Crocodiles are commercially farmed in many places, for their leather, which is made into expensive shoes and handbags, and recently, in Australia, for their meat. In areas where Crocodiles are farmed, there is a strong incentive to protect the natural habitat in order to keep an effecient system where profit is sustained and the crocodile population and local food chains are unharmed.

== Danger to Humans ==
Three species, the Nile crocodile of Africa, the Mugger crocodile of India and the Estuarine crocodile of Australia and South-East Asia, have a long history of attacking humans who enter the crocodile habitats.

== Crocodiles in the Bible ==

Some Biblical scholars have suggested that [[Leviathan]] may have been a crocodile, though others dispute this. [http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article01.html]

== References ==
<references />

{{Template:Nb zl crocodiles}}
[[Category:Reptiles]]
[[Category:Livestock]]

Crocodile

2011-11-02T02:53:19Z

LowKey: /* Danger to Humans */ "mugger" is from Urdu magar ("water monster") is from Sanskrit makara (for crocodile). "Muggers" are named for Romany muggers - who were blamed for any theft

{{Taxonomy
|name=Crocodile
|image=Americancrocodile.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Reptilia
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=
|order=Crocodilia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=
|family=Crocodylidae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=Crocodylus Osteolaemus
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=C. acutus C. cataphractus C. intermedius C. johnsoni C. mindorensis C. moreletii C. niloticus C. novaeguineae C. palustris C. porosus C. rhombifer C. siamensis O. tetraspis
|binomialname=
|syn=
|sub=
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=
}}
'''Crocodiles''' and their close relations [[alligator]]s, [[caiman]]s and [[gavial]]s, form the family Crocodylidae. Crocodiles are found in areas of higher temperature, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, India and South-East Asia, Indonesia and Australia, and throughout tropical America. Until recently Nile crocodiles were also found throughout North Africa, and in Palestine <ref>http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Palestine#Fauna</ref>.

In the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]], crocodiles emerged in the late [[triassic]] period from early archosauromorphs, at the same time as [[dinosaur]]s and true [[mammal]]s.

=== Species of crocodile ===

*Nile crocodile ''Crocodylus niloticus'' (Africa)
*American crocodile ''Crocodylus acutus'' ([[Caribbean Sea]], including the southern [[United States]])
*Morelet's crocodile ''Crocodylus moreletii'' (Central America)
*Cuban crocodile ''Crocodylus rhombifer'' (Cuba)
*Mugger crocodile ''Crocodylus palustris'' (India)
*Estuarine crocodile ''Crocodylus porosus'' (Australia and South-East Asia)
*Johnstone's crocodile ''Crocodylus johnsoni'' (Australia)
*Siamese crocodile ''Crocodylus siamensis'' (South-East Asia)
*Philippine crocodile ''Crocodylus mindorensis'' (Philippines)
*Orinoco crocodile ''Crocodylus intermedius'' (South America)
*New Guinea crocodile ''Crocodylus novaeguineae'' (New Guinea)
*Dwarf crocodile ''Osteolaemus tetraspis'' (Sub-Saharan Africa)

== Morphology ==

The name Crocodile came in Ancient Greece, and means 'lizard'. On external appearance, crocodiles resemble large aquatic lizards. However, Crocodiles, and other members of the family Crocodylidae are among the more biologically complex reptiles. Unlike most other reptiles, the Crocodiles possess a four-chambered heart, a feature mostly shown exclusively in birds and mammals. Other features include a diaphragm-like structure, again seen mostly in birds and mammals, and a cerebral cortex - the part of the brain mostly responsible for self-conciousness and the ability to learn. The crocodile, internally, is closer to that of a bird than to lizards, despite looking strikingly similar to other reptiles.

Members of the family Crocodylidae possess streamlined bodies and webbed feet, demonstrating its largely aquatic nature. However, Crocodilians are also well adapted for terrestrial terrains. They can for example, run (or gallop) at speeds of up to 15 kph.

== Behaviour ==

Crocodiles generally capture their prey, often large [[mammal]]s such as [[antelope]]s, by drifting close to them, motionless, then lunging and dragging their victim underwater, where it is drowned, then left to rot and soften up for later consumption.

Crocodiles typically lay their eggs in a mound of rotting vegetation; the mother will guard the nest from marauding [[iguana]]s and other egg-thieves, and solicitously adjust the depth to which the eggs are buried. When the baby crocodiles hatch, she will carry them to the water in her mouth. Hatchlings are precocial (able to fend for themselves at birth), though they stay with the mother for some time after hatching.

Many crocodiles [[aestivation|aestivate]] during summer.

== Crocodile Products ==

Crocodiles are commercially farmed in many places, for their leather, which is made into expensive shoes and handbags, and recently, in Australia, for their meat. In areas where Crocodiles are farmed, there is a strong incentive to protect the natural habitat in order to keep an effecient system where profit is sustained and the crocodile population and local food chains are unharmed.

== Danger to Humans ==
Three species, the Nile crocodile of Africa, the Mugger crocodile of India and the Estuarine crocodile of Australia and South-East Asia, have a long history of attacking humans who enter the crocodile habitats.

== Crocodiles in the Bible ==

Some Biblical scholars have suggested that [[Leviathan]] may have been a crocodile, though others dispute this. [http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article01.html]

== References ==
<references />

{{Template:Nb zl crocodiles}}
[[Category:Reptiles]]
[[Category:Livestock]]

Talk:Answers in Genesis

2011-08-23T23:33:55Z

LowKey: /* Dispute with Creation Ministries International, financial origins of */

== How AiG is supposedly not scientific ==
I think we all need to agree that AiG doesn't count as a valid source to cite for Conservapedia. Having read through its site pretty thoroughly, I can say that it's an extremely biased and opinionated organization with little to no actual scientific value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes we should use it! And of course it is biased - it has a conservative Christian bias! {{unsigned|Smile}}
::Andy has yet to admit that the site is biased. He's still pretending it's neutral. Until he does otherwise, we should keep the "dream" alive.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Nobody has to "admit" anything. This is a conservative Christian wiki project - it is in the name! [[User:Smile|Smile]] 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Bull. Look at the Commandments. It's supposed to be neutral and non-opinionated.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm backing AmesG on this one, AiG is shady and should be avoided as a reference. On their "about us" page they say: "When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account." That's a convienent way of saying, if it doesn't agree with the bible then the evidence is wrong and we're right. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

What utter rubbish from AmesG and Jrssr5. It presents a worldview that they are ideologically opposed to, so they try and dismiss it with unsubstantiated slander and twisting what they say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's also unfounded in science, but that's just picky, educated me.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's also wrong, and intellectual snobbery is unbecoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Snobbery is tolerated when one side is clearly correct. Offer me real science. Aaaaaand go.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:18, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Creation science ''is'' real science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Creation Science is to science what lightning bugs are to lightning (or possibly, what rat poison is to rats, since its only purpose is to KILL a branch of science). It's a collection of efforts to shoehorn the fossil record, astronomy, geology. etc, into the framework provided by a 4000-year-old fairy tale told by illiterate herders. What's next, [[Scientific Geo-Terrapinism]]? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::"Shoehorn" is a really good verb to describe it. Good analogy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::This is nothing more than biblisceptic rhetoric masquerading as fact. Are you blokes incapable of having a rational debate without this sort of nonsense? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No. See the article on falsifiability at my talk page.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Very disingenuous. Of course I saw it—[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG/Archive_1#Creationism I refuted much of it]. But you removed my refutation to an archive, and ignored (assuming you saw it) my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:AmesG&diff=62237&oldid=62179 edit comment] pointing out you had ignored the refutation and simply repeated the incorrect information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Care to refute it again? I must have missed it. Feel free to post your refutation on my talk page in a new section. It should be... interesting.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 02:14, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It's still there in your archive, as per the link I gave, so I don't feel inclined to repeat it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It looks like you gave up on the argument after PalMD001 explained it to you, so I'm not going to say that you refuted anything. But most of the problems you raise seem to be the basic misunderstandings of how science adapts to deal with new evidence, and how that's different from falsifiability. As you said, a stegosaurus bone with a human bitemark would change a lot about dinosaurs. But it wouldn't change evolution, necessarily. It wouldn't disprove the 4.5bn year old earth. What "evidence" do you guys even have for an "old earth"? And if you say, "the Bible, that's it," I might scream.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:03, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Then you didn't look very closely, because I responded to every reply he made in that section (by the way, I just realised that my intended link to the section wasn't to the section, sorry, but I've fixed it now).
:::::Thank you for agreeing that human bite marks on a dinosaur bone wouldn't refute evolution; that was my point—that evolution itself (as distinct from specific details) is not falsifiable, just like you blokes accuse creation of being. So if evolution itself is not falsifiable (note that I asked for something that would falsify evolution, and that question was never answered), why the double standard in insisting that creation must be?
:::::I figure you meant to ask what evidence we have for a ''young'' Earth? Apart from the Bible (which we consider reliable ''historical'' evidence, not ''scientific'' evidence), there are various dating methods that, whilst not guaranteeing to give an accurate age, are inconsistent with the old Earth idea. One is the amount of salt in the ocean, which gives an upper limit on the age of the oceans of (if I remember correctly) around 65 million years. Another is the size of human population, which could not have been increasing (as it does) for the million years or so that humans have been about.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Philip please explain the salt in the ocean issue. As for human population the growth has not be constant so it would be very difficult if not impossible to use this argument to refute the time that humans have been on the planet.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:02, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::On the salt in the ocean, see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/578 here]. On human population growth, the lack of a constant growth rate makes it impossible to determine an exact starting point. But we have data on a range of known growth rates, and using the lowest known growth rate still gives a starting point for human population ''far'' more recent that the evolutionary age. To put it the other way, the growth rate needed to fit with the evolutionary age is so close to zero for so long that it falls far short of any known long-term growth rate for human population. Of course, this doesn't "prove" anything. Evolutionists can invent all sorts of explanations for this, but in doing so they are going outside the known evidence and speculating in order to fit the data into their theory. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is falsifiable. If you could show me a modern human skull dated to 6 million years ago - well, slap me and call me Sally, that'd do it! But you won't. Also, your "age" evidence is specious. The salt-in-the-oceans argument (1) contradicts the literal Bible (but what doesn't, these days?) and (2) is refuted [http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/28565/page/7;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0 here]. I notice that the only source that actually stands by the salt-in-the-oceans thing is AnswersinGenesis, so citing it to prove its own veracity is a bit circular, ne? So here's an analogy I can give you to work out how science is falsifiable, but how theories work. I have a box full of marbles. I hypothesize, saying, "all marbles in this box are red." I start pulling out marbles, and I get 3 red marbles, and 4 crimson marbles, and 2 pink marbles. These new "findings" do not dispute my theory's major premise - that all marbles are red - but they inform what ''type'' of red the marbles are. So I change my hypothesis, saying, "all marbls in this box are shades of red." The theory still has strong predictive value, but has been strengthened by the finding of contrary evidence, since its major premise remains unchallenged. If, however, I pulled out a blue marble, the whole theory would have to go. So it is with evolution. I've seen a lot of pink marbles that make the theory more complex, but well Philip, I'm still waiting for that blue one!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::If a modern human skull was found and dated to six million years ago, the dating method would be called into question; it wouldn't falsify evolution.
::The salt-in-the-oceans argument does ''not'' contradict the biblical record, because the argument was for the ''maximum possible'' age, not the actual age.
::It being mentioned only on the AiG site does not affect whether or not it is science, which is what the question was; so again you have tried to dismiss the answer by raising a ''different'' objection.
::It doesn't make any real difference, but it is ''not'' only on the AiG site. It is also on the CMI site, and probably on the ICR site as well, at a minimum. The main researcher in this case does not work for AiG nor CMI (and never has). That objection is irrelevant.
::I understand what falsifiability is, thank you. But explaining what it is does not demonstrate that evolution ''per se'', or naturalism on which it is base, is falsifiable. I'm still waiting on an answer to that.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: Gonna go ahead and say "mission accomplished." [[Denny Crane]].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:00, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, you all already know what I think. It's all on Ames talk page and mine. I have given several examples of falsifiability (the steg bone, the skull) all of which could potentially falsify evo. I still haven't seen a single example in all the hullabaloo of a falsifying statement about ID. Bring it, please...Id love to hear it.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I answered the stegosaurus bone argument, and AmesG has agreed with me that it wouldn't falsify evolution.
:I don't know what skull example you are referring to. I've searched the archived talk page of Ames' and your talk page for "skull" with no hits on either.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Once again, give me an example of a potential falsification statement for creationism. Please. Also, I disagree with Ames to a certain extent. If a human skull was found in a 300 million year old strata, or homo erectus in a 1000 year old strata, or the whole steg bone thing, the current theory of evolution would be largely invalidated/falsified. So, it is falsifiable. Whether or not it will eventually happen, well, I have opinions based on fact, but no crystal ball. Give me any such example from creationism...I really do want to know.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 22:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Does AIG want removal of evo material from schools or present both views ==

Does AIG want removal of evo material from schools or present both views? Is the article correct? There is no citation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
: Only Genesis. No evil-ution. They're that nuts.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::A citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::He can't give one because that is not what they believe. He is criticising them with a straw-man argument of his own invention (although I'll admit that it may not be intentional; he might be so ideologically opposed to them that he actually believes his straw-man argument to be true). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight. Just like how you approach science, [[user:Conservative|Conservative]].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thank God for the sourcing rule. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::What "sourcing" rule? All of your edits are unfounded in fact, too - either relentlessly quote mined, taken out of context, or from nonsense organizations like AiG!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::More vilification of an organisation with a worldview that you oppose. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Have you read the ACLU article?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I hadn't, but a quick look at it now, and I don't know what point about it you are referring to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::Vilification of an organization whose worldview you oppose?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 02:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I ''think'' that you're claiming that the [[ACLU]] article is, like I accused you of, vilification of an organisation with a worldview that (many) editors here oppose. Is that correct? If it is, I'll have a look and see if I agree with you, and if I do, I'll try and do something about it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think AiG might be an Australian organization, so I'm not sure how involved they are with the American educational system's controversies. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::You're wrong! Actually, there is a grain of truth in what you say, but there's more to it than that.
::The following skips a few details, but is the gist of it. AiG started in Australia as the Creation Science Foundation. It subsequently opened an office (although it was technically an independent organisation) in New Zealand, then America. The American "branch" was started by Ken Ham, an Australian who was one of the founders of CSF. However, the American one couldn't use the same name ("Foundation" legally could only be used for something else in the U.S.), so chose the name Answers in Genesis. Subsequently CSF in Australia and New Zealand changed to the AiG name also. Other branches/offices were opened in the U.K., Canada, and South Africa, all using the same name. Last year AiG US (who operated the web-site that all countries used) decided to go it alone, and formally separated from the other organisations (except for the U.K.). So the remaining countries changed their name to Creation Ministries International, and started their own web-site (duplicating much of the AiG web-site, as most of the content had originated in Australia anyway; this explains why you will very often find the same articles on both). So apart from AiG U.K., and the founder being Australian, AiG is for all intents and purposes an American organisation.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==

I was wondering why the category of [[:Category:Christianity|Christianity]] was removed from this article. If [[:Category:Creationism|Creationism]] was a sub-category of Christianity, I would understand, but it isn't (and shouldn't be). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:Hi Philip, In looking at Christianity, it's mostly Christian principles or events that had a profound impact on its history or deal with theology. I had AIG mirror ICR. If we want the Christian label, I'd recommend Category:Christian organizations, and probably put the same in ICR. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:59, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, that's good reasoning. And Christian Organisations sounds like a good idea to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:32, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks, didn't mean to cause any difficulties. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:34, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::::Difficulties? What difficulties? This was just a good, proper, conversation about the article. No difficulties at all. Keep up the good work. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:51, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

As far as consistency goes, have a look at [[Creation Ministries International]]. I've just added Christian Organization to that, but there is a consistency issue there. I'm sure you can sort it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dispute with Creation Ministries International, financial origins of ==

The article says that...

'''1.''' AiG US withdrew from the group of sister AiG organizations, that they all had been sharing the one web-site run by the American ministry, and that this effectively forced the remaining organizations in Australia (the parent organization), New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa to rebrand, as Creation Ministries International (CMI). 
'''2.''' AiG US stopped distributing Creation magazine and the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation (both published by the Australian ministries), switching subscribers to the new Answers magazine published by the American ministry. 
'''3.''' CMI claims that this was unethical, unlawful, and '''harmed their ministry'''. 
'''4.''' On its website, AiG US does not discuss the lawsuit between itself and CMI, but does state that the parting was due to how to best present their common YEC message. 

From what I recall, the definition of the (sacred) ministry being harmed includes the merchandizing of publications. For that matter, what is Ken Ham's own answer to the question of what justifies the merchandizing of (sacred) ministry? Does he think the Apostles saw to the distribution of copies of their own letters by way of selling the copies like a man sells vegetables at a farmers market? And, if the demand for copies of those letters had been as high as the demand for the publications of AiG, does Ken Ham think the Apostles would have been justified---in the opinion of Jesus himself---to sell them like common produce as the means of meeting that demand? [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

...Any thoughts, anyone? [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Nevertheless, although the dispute wound up including financial issues its origin was an attempt to dilute personal power in the interests of Godly ministry. That is in my reading at least (my reading has been fairly extensive). [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:33, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

User talk:LowKey

2011-08-23T04:49:18Z

LowKey: /* Extra privileges granted */ thanks

== I think we would all appreciate it ==

If you didn't suddenly destroy a conversation--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:35, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservapedia has a policy against negative personal comments. LowKey was within his rights to remediate that unseemly conversation. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:47, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::And we all know that conversation isnt going to go away because a user decided to replace a bunch of comments with "personal attack removed". Besides, If they are personal attacks, that would be hiding the evidence they existed, forcing a judging synop to go through the history to see the original remarks,. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:56, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Believe what you like, SeanS. No judging sysop except RobSmith has yet gone through any history in the last 8 months of people complaining about "Conservative's" behavior, including his most recent tear of really nasty comments against individuals (editors here and otherwise) and whole organizations (the Catholic Church). I don't expect anything to change since multiple discussions of this nature have occurred on Andy Schlafly's talk page and the Community Portal and he's declined to intervene. LowKey might as well put a better face on an awfully unseemly discussion that is going nowhere. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:16, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::If conservative is so uncaring about the rules, why would hiding his comments do anything? That conversation won't disappear because you hide them, and it isn't going to have a change in tone or words because you hide them, all it'll do is get you to be an enemy of conservative. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 11:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

SeanS, I replaced the personal attacks with the template that is prescribed by policy. If you disagree with that policy, then take it up with the policy makers. Your assertion about "hiding the evidence" makes little sense, as no-one was seeking censure ''for'' the personal remarks, but simply annihilating them for the sake of civility. I am a completely disintereted party who read through the "conversation", saw the civility policy invoked, read said policy and enacted it as written. I do not think I should be the one criticised for the fact that up unitl then everyone failed to follow the policy. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:13, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Slight change. ==

I think it would be fair to say I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_controversy&action=historysubmit&diff=894934&oldid=894584 clarified] your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=894584 edit]. What say you? --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 00:24, 30 July 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know that it's a clarification, so much as a slight change of meaning. Some scientific controversy is '''not''' driving advancement, which I left room for in my edit. As it currently stands, the article says that controversy ''necessarily'' drives advancement, which is not necessarily true. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Extra privileges granted ==

You've been granted blocking and SkipCatcha privileges. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oh. Thanks. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:49, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

User talk:LowKey

2011-08-01T00:51:21Z

LowKey: /* Slight change. */

Scientific controversy

2011-07-29T11:16:45Z

LowKey: the role of controversy in advancing science

'''Scientific controversy''' exists when multiple scientists assert different viewpoints on a scientific matter.

[[Politicized science]] often takes the viewpoint that there is a [[scientific consensus]] on an issue and use this stance as a justification for suppressing [[scientific debate]]. In extreme cases, advocates for one point of view have engaged in [[character assassination]].

Scientific controversy can be a driving force for scientific advancement. Historically, paradigm-shifting scientific "breakthroughs" have almost by definition been scientific controversies. The existing majority view becomes a [[ruling paradigm]] and the fact of controversy is often denied, with dissenting views ridiculed and relegated to the fringe. In successful cases the fringe becomes a controversy and the controversy establishes a new majority view.

[[Stephen C. Meyer]] wrote:
* Scott and Branch attempt to associate our position with that of [[holocaust deniers]] and [[creation scientists]]. They also repeatedly use the perjorative term ‘[[anti-evolutionist]]’, thereby confusing the issue and mischaracterizing the motives and rationale of those of us who want to see students informed of the scientific controversies that exist within and about aspects of contemporary [[darwinism]].
* Teaching students about scientific controversies is less a matter of fairness (still less, to religious sensibilities as they imply) than it is a matter of full [[scientific disclosure]]. [http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_scientificdissent.htm]

[[Category:Science]]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-07-29T03:58:57Z

LowKey: /* Section Break */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

== quick note about talk page protection being removed from comedy/satires ==

I thought about RobS wanting to make it a more open wiki and so I decided to remove the talk page protection for the comedy/satire pages on atheism and evolution

I put the redirects and page protection to add to the humor of the comedy/satire pages. Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men (see: [[Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women]] ). The thought of quarrelsome militant atheists hitting the talk page buttons of those comedy/satire pieces and getting redirected to another page had a element of humor to me. Like getting the last laugh to often humorless persons in humorous way. Plus, I just don't see the point of it. I don't foresee me participating in the talk pages of these comedy/satire pages in the future. The idea of debating comedy/satire/humor does not hold any interest to me. If any liberals want to debate humor, I suggest they contact their locale papers about their political satires or send any angry letter to some stand up comics. In addition, I don't see the point of bothering with the posts of whiny atheists with thin skins who want to make picayune and inane comments.

With the above said, obviously there are cost and benefits to decisions and I wanted to assist RobS in his aforementioned effort.

However, I don't want anyone unlocking the comedy/satire pages themselves. Some have a lot of viewership and if they are not broke, I don't want them "fixed" - especially by atheists/evolutionists. Within reason, I personally think essay pages should be like a person's talk page and be their castles. The thought of someone altering essays seems odd to me except for minor proofreading. Of course, I would be against the essays promoting immorality such as engaging in bank robberies, etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:53, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I returned to tie up a loose end with editor Nate. With that being said, I just wanted to say that if atheists in the future wish to fill those talk pages with whiny comments, it will of course confirm atheists are often proud people who have thin skins so I welcome them to squeal like stuck pigs on the comedy/satire talk pages. :) I won't be reading their whiny comments, but I am guessing that others might enjoy seeing them whelp on the talk pages of the comedy/satires of atheism and evolution. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:25, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

My conversation with "Conservative" was removed after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review it. What is the meaning of this outrageous behavior? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 08:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:Can you be more specific, as to where or what page you refering to? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:31, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::It was in the section above this one. The posts are from yesterday. "Conservative" deleted the whole section after I asked Mr. Schlafly to review "Conservative's" insulting behavior and state whether the editorial policy here is YEC as to articles like evolution. I don't know how to find the posts. Can administrators look at the history? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You don't have to be an administrator, unless the edits in question have been oversighted. Is [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=887044&oldid=887012 this] part of what you're talking about? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Yes, thank you. That's the last post in the section "Conservative" deleted. How do you find pages like that? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:21, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There's a little tab at the top of the page labeled 'history'; click on that and you get a list of changes starting with the most recent. Hope that helps. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:23, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Very much, thank you. I knew abut my contributions button but didn't know about history. I now see that entire discussions that took place in December between "Conservative" and various users challenging the absolute lack of evidence of any correlation between atheism and obesity have completely disappeared. What is going on on this site?! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 14:38, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Now that's something one does need to be an administrator to answer. I try to stay out of these things. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:00, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Nate, the comment was never deleted, or reverted. It was Archived. I would be supportive of a guideline on Archiving that gives a 7 day waiting period since the last posting before Archiving. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:39, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I didn't know what an archive is. Thank you for showing me, RobS. All I saw was that the conversation was suddenly missing. It was archived around 11:30 Central time and I had to get to bed so I never had a chance to see "Conservative's" last post ending the conversation by "stating the obvious" and further denigrating the Catholic Church as "not the most Bible loving institution" and saying "I really think it is hard to deny that much of the Catholic leadership and a significant amount of RCC scholars fail to take a high view of Scripture." I deny it. I deny it up and down and am getting and more offended as "Conservative" continues slandering the Catholic Church. It may surprise "Conservative" to know that people just like me read the Bible (there are a LOT of us) literally where the context indicates it should be read literally. People can obviously come to different conclusions based on ''how'' they decide what is to be read literally. Young Earth Creationists like "Conservative" treat the first chapters of Genesis as history. I was taught and accept the "Framework View". Our disagreement should not entitle "Conservative" to slander an entire Church and an enormous group of people who walk the walk everyday. Will someone please help get this person under control and stop the sneering anti-Catholic jabs and clarify whether YEC is the editorial policy here? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:32, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Nate, you never addressed information like this that I provided from the online version of Roman Catholic New American Bible: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/intro.htm which gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture. The website http://www.usccb.org is maintained by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I suggest you cease your denialism. You can cry slander day and night, but unless you demonstrate it, you are not particularly convincing. By the way, it appears things are not looking good for evolutionism in the key biology textbook state of Texas as can be seen [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-volunteer-is-coming-aboard-who-is.html HERE] Have a nice day! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:56, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::What's to address? You're laughably wrong. You gave a link to the introduction to Second Peter in an edition of the Bible but haven't even bothered to justify your offensive claim that it "gives an example of many post 1960s Catholic scholars not having a high view of Scripture." These men are bishops of the Catholics Church. What do you think they're doing if they're not devoting their lives in service of a "high view of scripture"? You also haven't demonstrated why scholarship questioning the provenance of Second Peter is wrong. So you've failed altogether to do anything more than argue by assertion based on an absurdly erroneous misreading of the source. And I'm in denial? You can't even accurately cite sources in order to prop up your vendetta against "liberals", atheists, "evolutionists" now Catholics. I looked at this shockofgod stuff you keep spamming. The guy looks like a Youtube crank running his mouth about an ambitious campaign that's having little or no effect. Good luck with that. I'll ignore him like everyone else seems to be doing. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 11:45, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I see that you can safely be ignored. How is your request for Andy's input going? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafy's refusal to intervene to stop your abuses is disappointing. The smiley face and your insulting non response just prove my point that you're an awful debater who refuses to address things on the level or cooperate. I'm very sorry for this site that no other admin except this sneering creature chose to intervene. Please close my account if no other admin is willing to assist with controlling this person. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 02:44, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
:Well geez, what are you asking? Pardon me, but your complaints seem to be all over the map. First you complain about a possible anti-Catholic bias because the assertion is made the Roman Catholic Church views the Pope as arbiter of God's Word and not scripture; then you make complaints about the user your in dispute with; then you complain about the sites owner; then you complain nobody's willing to help; then you complain about the site. Now you wanna take your ball and go home cause others can't debate whatever you are driving at.
:Let's address the complaint of anti-Catholic bias: other sites, devoted to athiesm and rational science, I'm sure are much less sympathetic to Catholicism than the devotion and respect it recieves here. Have you tried defending the Catholic faith at those sites? If so, gimme a link so we can see your bona fidas. Maybe then your complaints would be taken more seriously. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:46, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

== Resolution of matters ==

[[User:Conservative]] wrote: ''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved, CP not becoming a pro-evolution website''. My proposal: when a matter is resolved, a short (but highlighted) statement should be added under the respective discussion, summarizing the achieved consensus. After this, the discussion can be archived.

[[User:Conservative]] stated that [[Gender-neutral|he]] won't protect talk pages any longer - but what about the deletions? Has [[Gender-neutral|he]] said something about them?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:01, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative said so above, "''''deletion and satire page protection issue resolved''". I'm not certain restoring all, or certain, talk page deletions are possible. And mainspace, such as the link you provided, are simple reversions or edit wars. Am I understanding your question properly? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:28, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I will use more discretion as far as the delete button so as not to remove credit to other contributions. Including this time, I have said this three times now. I suggest you stop beating this dead horse and let it rest in peace. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:32, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

:::@RobSmith: I thought that Conservative's comment indicated that some issues had been resolved. And that's my point: After having a problem resolved, there should be an easily readable short resolution, perhaps a template which states in which way the matter was solved. After this, the topic could be archived. This would help to avoid repeating the same discussions over and over again - one could link to the already resolved project. Just an idea for the future...
:::BTW: I linked each occurence of ''he'' to the article on [[gender-neutral|gender-neutrality]], as I wanted to explain why I won't address [[User:Conservative]] as ''(s)he''.
:::@Conservative: it's nice that you'll ''"use more discretion as far as the delete button"'' is concerned. What's about using the ''preview-button'' - as taken into consideration by you [[User talk:AugustO# You comment to me has been read and I will take your comment into consideration|here]]?
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::AugustO, thanks for the input. A person I invited to this wiki who created a very popular article at Conservapedia told me he created his material on a word processor first and then transferred that material to Conservapedia. I can use this same approach. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:57, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Deletion==
Perhaps user:conservative would like to tell us why he has taken to summarily deleting other users' user and talk pages. This would appear to be in contravention of the spirit of free speech that Mr Schlafly [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=887947&oldid=887941 encourages] on this wiki.

Sadly, this is yet another indication of user:conservative's complete lack of interest in the protocols of this wiki, nor is he interested in anything but himself and his own agenda, even if it means insulting Catholics like NKeaton and Mr. Schlafly. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:54, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
::TracyS, I don't think you are a sincere person and your most recent instance of trying to pick a fight with me over a complete trivial non-issue. Please find something productive to do rather than making baseless charges and trying to waste other peoples time. Also, if you truly felt I have insulted Mr. Schlafly I would think you would have contacted him about this matter. Unsurprisingly, I have no indication you did. My guess is that if you did try to make this allegation with Mr. Schlafly you would get the same non-response as NKeaton. I have nothing further to say about deleting a person's page who indicated they no longer wanted to edit. I also have nothing further to say about recently deleting another profile with nonsensical and contradictory material created by an inane provocateur. If you think I am going to waste a lot of my time dealing with your melodramatic and phony posts to me, guess again. I am not. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::User:Conservative has in the past several hours reverted talk page comment from Aschlafly's page. Stop. Please stop. You are not Aschlafly. This is a violation of another's user space. You are not free to remove comments from other users space. If Mr. Schlafly wanted those comments removed he would do it himself or ask someone to do it. Mr. Schlafly removed personal information from that same thread; if Mr. Schalfly wanted that thread removed he would have done it there and then. User:Conservativis action is disrespectful to another users talk page, and all CP editors.
:::User:Conservative has gained quite the reputation for information destruction. This wiki has survived some battles, and now is the time to demand accountability from Sysop. Sysops are to be models of interaction for junior editors, but they are not whenthey feel they can violate and ignore CP's core principles. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:27, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Setting aside your allegation about my reputation information destruction (A claim which I find odd given my 63 page article on [[atheism]] which I largely wrote, 46 written page article on [[evolution]] which I largely wrote and a 62 written page article [[homosexuality]] which I largely wrote. Perhaps, I have a reputation for information dissemination? ), I will briefly say that you raise a good point in this instance. A person's talk page is their castle. Although I decided to remove my own post, I do think it would have been better if I had asked Mr. Schlafly first. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and changing the way I do things. RobS, can the same be said of you? I have yet to receive an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page. You may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle. Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter? You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that. But I would at ask you to be consistent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:09, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It is not your talk page. It is Mr. Schalfly's. Your talk page is your castle, do what you want with it. But other's talk pages must be respected. If the comment was innapropriate, it shouldn't have been placed in the first place. And users who troll other's talk pages generally get blocked. Both are blockable offenses, and edit warring over it is another. You need to be an example for sysop wannabe's, both (a) how to interact with other editors, and (b) how ''not'' to misuse sysop powers. There is entirely too much shoot-from-the-hip with you in all of this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:31, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm concerned that the focus here isn't necessarily in the right spot, and I apologize for not having contributed to the community portal earlier - I'd been on a series of summer vacations visiting family up and down the East Coast. Frankly, I think it's acceptable if some leeway is given to comments written by the user, even if on another user's talk page. Do I think it's ideal to post a comment and then remove it? No, but the wiki doesn't break down if it happens. In the same sense that it's acceptable to fix typos in your posts, I think it's acceptable - though again, not ideal - for a user to determine that his post might no longer be relevant, or perhaps was redundant, and take it upon himself to delete said post (assuming no other users have contributed to the discussion).

I must admit I was previously more concerned with the wholesale deletion and recreation of pages, but I think that a lot of progress has been made on that issue thanks in large part to Rob, so my commenting would serve no real purpose.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:52, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, if you want to lead in this area, you need to lead by example. I still not have received an apology from you for removing the protection from my talk page.
::::And you're not gonna get one.
:::Again, you may not like the system I have for receiving my messages, but Conservapedia does say that a person's talk page is their castle.
::::Then leave other people's castle alone.
:::Am I going to receive an apology from you concerning this matter?
::::Am I gonna recieve an apology from you for your rudeness? Stop reverting, deleting, and oversighting discussions I am involved in.
:::You have chosen to be assertive and I have no problem with that.
::::Thanks, I didn't know I needed your approval.
:::But I would at ask you to be consistent.
::::Here's consistancy: STOP ABUSING YOUR SYSOP POWERS!
:::I have a feeling that no apology will be forthcoming.
::::It ain't.
:::Regrettably, I have to say that I have downgraded my expectations for your success with your project in instituting new rules and getting their requisite enforcement.
::::Regrettably, I have to say I agree you have abused your sysop powers.
:::I feel it will be impeded by you wanting to throw your weight around and not showing a willingness to admit your own mistakes and to abide by existing rules. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:12, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Don’t lecture me on the rules, pal. You’ve never shown an interest in policy development or writing sysop rules. All you’ve done is abuse the powers granted, abused the sensibilities of people trying to contribute, and damaged the reputation of yourself and Conservapedia. [[User:RobSmith|RobSmith]] 23:30, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:If "a person's talk page is their castle," why do you keep deleting and recreating other peoples' talk pages/castles? [[User:RodneyA|RodneyA]] 23:20, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I have already address this matter. I will further add that unlike Aschafly I did have JPatt's and Karajou agreement to mess around with their castles. :) In addition, Aschlafly is not particularly upset with me and has not poured oil down upon me from his castle walls. :) Lastly, I standby my action with NKeaton and the person I blocked and have no further commentary! Adios! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:45, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::RobS, I just saw your post. I suggest if you have a good case as far as some of your allegations that you take it up with Mr. Schlafly and with all due haste. I suggest you do that right now. I don't think that is gong to happen and even if you tried, I don't think it would go anywhere. We both know this. I don't mind altering my behavior due to reasonable requests. I think you should take a good hard look at how Iduan and August is approaching matters as I think you will have far more success. I do find it sad that your oversized ego and hot temper are getting in the way of admitting you erred concerning violating policy on my talk page.
:::Admit you erred in reverting, deleting, archiving, and oversighting active discussions I was involved in, blocking some participants without cause, and deleting their user pages. And let's understand this straight out -- this discussion is not about roasting User:Conservative, it is about developing guidleines and policies for editor and sysop conduct. You my good man, are simply the posterboy for abuse because of your unresponsiveness to other editors.
:::So you can cease right here and now with personal attacks about others ego, etc. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:40, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::Good luck with pushing your reforms with your present attitude and inconsistency. Next, I will certainly admit that with TK around I wasn't exactly an eager beaver as far as developing policies. I have from day one had my primary focus be content creation and related matters. I don't regret my decision. I think at this point, we should just avoid needlessly butting heads and get along as much as possible. I think I have clarified my position sufficiently and responded to other comments sufficiently. Despite your personal shortcomings and your recent behavior towards me, I have no ill will towards you and I hope your initiative bears fruit. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:16, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. Let's work together to improve the wiki. I too, was always focused on content, but now we have the opportunity to overcome earlier mistakes the CP project made in ''not'' providing adequate guidelines and development support for sysops and editors. Registered users should be ''encouraged'' to contribute, and worked with to help develop their talents, not suspected as trolls from the minute they register, hounded, stalked, and blocked before they perform their first edit. The sysops that remain in this project must seriously review our shortcomings and recognize much of what we've tried has failed. I propose we overhaul our existing written policies and guidelines, and present them to the site's owner for input and ratification. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Thanks for the cordial response. A pointless wiki battle doesn't serve anyone. I am working on making some changes as well which I believe could make a big change if they were implemented. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

===Reform movement===

:::<s>User:Conservative ... firstly I can't find what you accuse RobS of doing in your page log - http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User+talk%3AConservative - there's no record of an "unprotection".</s> ('''update''': I was mistaken - an unprotection did occur; I stand by my second point. Apologies for the mistake.) Secondly, I think the notion that, without an apology for a, <s>presumably</s>, one-time mistake, Rob's efforts have no legitimacy, is an absurd one - and so is the notion that this is only Rob's crusade. Rob started an attempt at reform, and I think we'd all say he deserves many kudos for doing so, but it's on all of us to build a better encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:21, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Iduan, I had asked RobS for clarification and received no response. Regardless, RobS's recent behavior towards me still has caused me to downgrade my expectations. Frankly, my expectations were not that high to begin with, but I had hoped for the best. Personally, I think the first order of business is to enforce existing core rules such as citing your sources which is given in the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Conservapedia commandments]]. The people I requested to create content Conservapedia cited their sources and those articles are among the most popular articles at Conservapedia. However, most if not all wikis, are under sourced. I do think Conservapedia could do better in this area and I think the Admin group could do better in this department and lead by example. I may have ignored the preview button for various reasons and I am not against altering my behavior at this stage, but giving my sources has been a strong point of my content. Creating stub articles or under sourced articles is often a total waste of time. Higher quality content, on the other hand, often gets ranked at the search engines and is more apt to bring in new readers and new editors. Non-quality content serves as a deterrent to gaining new editors. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:56, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I absolutely agree that citing sources is important - I think that's something that I've certainly been very careful to do in almost all my articles, but of course every user, including myself, could always do better. As to the preview button: I'm not especially concerned with the preview button and its usage. I think the question here, though, is what must sysops be subservient to? Obviously, Andy is the final authority, but regulating every sysops behavior would be a waste of time on his part. So I think what we all are trying to accomplish is some sort of explicit guidelines that will allow users to know what to expect from sysops, as well as allow sysops to police each-other and point out if one has erred.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::We need rules for sysops. And we need sysops to understand they can loose those powers for violating the rules.
::::::*We need clearly defined blockng policy.
::::::*We need clearly defined deletion policy.
::::::*We need a definition of vandalism.
::::::*We needa clear understanding under what circumstances oversight is to be used.
::::::*We need a method of review when it becomes obvious a sysop has oversteped those bounds.
::::::*We need a definition of good faith.
::::::*We need to end this hideous "member of a vandal site" cause for blocking, which I can find no precedent anywhere how it came into existence, other than TK invented it out of whole cloth.
::::::*We need to end blocking on sight. Some sysops must run traceroute before a user makes thier first edit. This is not showing good faith and a terrible example to set.
::::::*We need to encourage community participation, policy development, and building consensus.
::::::*We need a definition of consensus.
::::::*And a few other things. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:20, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Iduan, some of Conservapedia's biggest missteps have been the result of poor sourcing and poor research which inevitably lead to poor content in those instances and this has happened to all wikis and not just Conservapedia. Second, I had told RobS that I had wanted to attend to this matter at another time and frankly RobS knows it could have waited as I told him privately that I had wanted to tackle other non-wiki matters and would not be creating much content and be far less active at Conservapedia in the short term. Plus, I think some of his charges towards me are ill conceived and ill supported. This is what convinces me that RobS has a problem with throwing his weight around and showboating. Furthermore, his refusal to apologize for removing the protection of my talk page further adds to this assessment. Did I want to say this about RobS? Was I trying to undermine his efforts? No. I said I wished him the best and until today I had chosen to remain silent about my reservations in terms of the success of his initiative. Does this mean that I think the project is doomed and RobS cannot change his behavior. No and I hope he does. I would suggest he start showing more good faith towards me and stop pestering me. I have no problems with being cordial towards RobS and cooperating with his initiatives, but it has to be a two way street in terms of respecting each other and our efforts. If RobS chooses to repair things I think that would be great and I could be among his biggest supporters. If he continues to show bad faith that would be most unfortunate. The balls is in his court now. I am certainly not going to support someone who is pestering me though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::By the way, I would add that it would not surprise me if the content/allegations/tone of this portal has caused Mr. Schlafly not to participate in this portal. I would think that RobS would want Aschlafly as a big supporter and for him to participate in this community portal. That certainly would be a big boost to his efforts. Have I told Mr. Schlafly how wonderful this community portal is? No, I have not. I said that although some good points were raised, I certainly had some reservations on how things were being conducted. Again, I would suggest that RobS cease and desist his pesterfest as I would far prefer being a wholesale supporter of this initiative than being a skeptical detractor who hopes for the best, but has some open reservations as far its potential for success. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

I think the biggest concern about delaying the conversation is that it will be delayed indefinitely; obviously any contributions that you can add despite your schedule are extra-appreciated. Its certainly reasonable to have a small delay, but without a timeline that's hard to do. I can't serve as a medium between you/Rob, but I do think no user is purposely pestering another; I think any bluntness can be attributed to the supposed urgency of the moment that all wikis are subject to, and not to hostility.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:09, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:Iduan, I do thank you for your cordiality and reasonableness. Despite some inappropriate conduct, I do think some positive benefits have resulted from this portal. As far as RobS pestering me, I think it was the result of impatience and ego and not being particularly concerned about another editor. I don't think his main focus is to pester me at an importune time, but nonetheless that has been the result. I am usually fairly successful at getting key participants cooperation for things that are important to me as I can be pleasantly persistent. RobS has chosen to be unpleasant and pushy. I would prefer to be a supporter of RobS though and time will tell if this happens. I think it is fair to say that things are fairly frosty in terms of us having a working relationship at the present time and that is unfortunate. I do have a feeling though that I may have accomplished my objective of not having RobS pester me and he may finally see the light concerning this matter. It shouldn't have taken this long though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:36, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

====Proposal 1; re:blocking====
Perhaps we should create a block review panel? Users with blocking rights who are willing to be contacted in the case that a user feels a block was unfairly handed out. I feel as though having a specific block policy and this theoretical panel could circumvent the need to define "vandalism" - which in my experience can be amorphous. Obviously specifics could be drawn up later, but as I see it a panel member could, should the scenario call for it, reverse a block without any hard feelings, and perhaps as a general guideline (though not a rule) the unblocked user should - barring clear vandalism - under no circumstances be reblocked by the original blocking user. This is very similar to current policy, except users inexperienced with wikis might not know how to find users with blocking privileges to contact if they have a concern, and this would conveniently list willing, active users. This would at least partly address bullets 1, 3, 5 re: blocking, 6 and 9.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:03, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::That may not be feasible. Every blocked person could ask for review as a result. It may have unintended consequences. I think a better solution in the meantime is to be choosier about who is given block rights. I should have been more vocal about Bugler and RodWeathers being phonies but at least I got RodWeathers to create content. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:14, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well presumably with a large enough pool of willing "admins" (I'm using that to mean people with blocking rights, but I do understand the difference) it shouldn't be hard to accommodate those requests. I think it's relatively easy to determine whether a user is completely bad faith or whether perhaps a second chance should be granted. Certainly well done on Rod!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:18, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need serious blocking policy reform; I tried to log in minutes ago from my local public library and the account was blocked because of "possible misuse of U.S. or other government computer system." Can anyone help me right now in locating these blocks so they can be undone? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:38, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::We need full articulation when and under what circumstances a Range block is applicable. We've probably blocked every Starbucks and McDonald's on the planet, infinitely, as well as every public library and college. Undoing 4 years of inappropriate blocking is a real chore. [[Conservapedia:New sysop training page]] needs updating. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:36, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I can absolutely get behind that. I would offer to help with range blocks, but I'm not familiar at all with that area - I've never even issued a range block. I also agree the language should be toned down on the blocking section of the sysop training page. While it is important to "err on the side of caution", as the page suggests, block are a serious punishment, and should be handed out with careful consideration.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:07, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Here's the page[[ Conservapedia:Blocking policy]]; it should be written primarily for sysops. Editors can get the idea from there what is expected from them if they aspire to be sysops. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
[[Conservapedia:New_sysop_training_page#Blocking]] - which you already linked to - seems to be a much more detailed (longer, certainly) approach. I would almost go so far as to suggest that the content from that section literally be flipped with content from that guideline page, after the language is toned down. (I could work on doing that, if you'd like, although perhaps it'd be best coming from you)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:17, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:Yes please do. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:21, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::This is what I've come up with: [[User:Iduan/guidelinedraft#Blocking]]. I would suggest that the first point - which is applicable to all users with block rights - be moved to [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy]], but the second two points - which involve using administrator tools like "checkuser" or "delete" - be kept on the sysop page. If you could check over what I did it'd be greatly appreciated! (And obviously feel free to edit - I'm just using my userspace as a sandbox)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:43, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::(Just so you know - and you don't think I'm just being lazy - I'm actually unable to edit the new sysop guide page as its protected, hence the fork)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:02, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Ok, I'll help on the userspace talk page. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:23, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::Personally, I think that we should try working with ISPs before issuing rangeblocks. For ISPs that will not work with us, we should block those ISPs altogether, with a note that users should complain to their ISP or switch to another one to contribute to Conservapedia. This is what email administrators have been doing for quite some time, and although it isn't without flaw, it seems to have been somewhat effective for them. Since I have five years of experience dealing with ISPs, I'd be more than happy to help Conservapedia in doing this, and both Jpatt and Karajou can attest to my effectiveness.
::As for people desiring to appeal their block, Wikipedia and some other wikis allows blocked users to edit their own talk page and insert a template to challenge their block. They have an option to revoke this privilege if it is abused. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:44, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Good. I may have some questions on ISP and want to know more. Appealing a block presents some problems, namely manpower (or personpower to be politically correct) to handle it. This of course can be another source of efforts to just waste sysops time. If we had dozens of sysops with time on their hands to respond, and handle it responsibly, it wouldn't matter. Let's not put nthe cart before the horse. Let's hammer out a definition of "good faith user" and "vandalism", then if there's any misunderstanding in what that means, we could add an appeals process. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:10, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Hold on here. My thoughts are this. Disputing an administrator's block (unless you are an admin yourself) is disputing their judgement, which is uncalled for. I, for one, trust Andy's judgement in appointing his admins, and by extent trust the admins he appoints. I think, as editors, we should not question an sysop's decision. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:59, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:We need to identify and define grounds for blocking. Then we can review a sysop's actions. This means ''both'' sysops and editors can be held accountable. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:41, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

==Archiving==
Only discussions which are inactive for 7 days should be archived. Any discussion thread with a comment within the past 7 days should still be considered an active, ongoing discussion. This will give all users and interested parties an opportunity to review and participate. See [[Conservapedia:Editing_article_and_talk_pages#Talk_pages_and_Archiving]] for more details. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:53, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

[[Category:Navigation box]]
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

== Enforceable rules for sysop conduct ==

This is a follow-up to some [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=884164&oldid=884024 points I made on Andy's talk page], which he said he agreed with completely.

First, I have to recognize and congratulate RobS for his work on bringing the rule of law to Conservapedia, and for lending his sysop influence to this.

The point I want to make is that "tweaking" the 90/10 rule (80/20, 70/30, whatever) requires that rules, and violations thereof, be logically connected with account blocks. This is simple logic. '''It does no good to lay out criteria for blockable misbehavior if sysops block people for whatever reason they please, with no regard for actual infractions''' (90/10, combative arguing, trolling, vandalism, lying, etc.)

Blocks '''must have verifiable reasons'''. But a look at the block log shows things like:
*By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki
*provided no proof and evidence that atheism is true
*Negative personal comments: The pigstie you require is down at Uncle Billy's farm.
*नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार (what???????)
*Multiple accounts; same IP(s) as existing/previous user(s): Need to change your socks, pardner...try washing them as well.
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: fake professors need not apply
*lack of machismo
*no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize
*Member of a website supporting vandalism: I'm all for improvement too, stupid, which is why you're outta here.
*Broken arrow! (with a youtube page about the movie "We Were Soldiers") (what???????)
*I suggest going to Africa and searching for Mokele-mbembe. You have 5 years to do it now
*If only you were as nice as a pony, maybe women would love you
*probably an obese atheist with a thin skin!
*conservapedia obssessive compulsive disorder
*obesity

Blocking is serious business! It reflects upon the seriousness of Conservapedia. If you can't put in a cogent block reason, find some other sysop who can.

Now some of the cases above were probably well-founded, like the one with the comment with "try washing them as well", but sysops should be models of probity and levelheadedness, and should not have made that comment. Even if personally annoyed by someone's behavior, sysops should not let it get to them.

There are some other things that simply must not be permitted:

*Wanton deletion of pages, without VERY good reason. For example, deleting another user's user page or talk page. Even if it is swiftly recreated, and even if this is done without loss of information, there is simply no excuse for it.
*"Oversighting", that is, removal of information in such a way that there is no record that it ever existed.
*Deletion of material from talk pages, unless it is truly libellous. Talk pages are a journal of discussions. There is almost never a reason to delete anything. Merely being peeved by something is not an excuse. If you are insulted by something, there should be a way to mark it with "personal attack removed" or something. I don't know the details.

Now I'm going to step on some toes. Take a deep breath, everybody.

The sysop guidelines / rules need to be '''enforceable'''. The Conservapedia community needs to know that they will be followed. Therefore, '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''. I see plenty of well-intentioned "junior" sysops who are doing an excellent job of keeping the site running smoothly. The removal of one or two sysops for flagraqnt violations will not harm Conservapedia. In fact, it may help immensely, by setting an example of expected behavior.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:17, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

:I don't see why you're so upset over the block comments. Conservative is simply trying to add some humor. However regarding the Hindi/Thai/whatever block summary, this is an English wiki so everything should be in English. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 11:05, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
:::MeganH, you are a good guesser. It was Hindi. With that being said, SamHB's post has some merit as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:41, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

==Community input requested==
Editors are encouraged to give us your input on two very important proposals being reviewed presently. They are,

*[[Conservapedia:Blocking_policy]]

*[[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]

Please comment on the talk pages there, or be bold in giving us your input in the article mainspace. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Block appeal? ==

A thought that just hit me: I'm genuinely not sure if this has been considered so far, but with internal e-mail now being disabled and the Zoho account not being listed on the Main Page, what is the current appeal process when you're blocked? I didn't check how many sysops list their e-mail address on their user page, but I'd be somewhat surprised if many do (since it attracts spam bots).

[[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] probably needs to be amended with a link to whatever appeal/contact policy is up to date, too. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
:That link's hilarious. But seriously, we're looking into this. We'd like to get a good blocking policy everyone can get behind in place. I'm arguing CP should stop trying to re-invent the wheel, and look at how WP has learned to deal with sockpuppetry and vandalism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== Conservapaedia suppressing users' rights? ==
:''Discussion moved from [[Talk:Main Page]]
Coming here to complete a registration and start writing about my topics of interest, I got deeply disappointed when I saw the message '''Only alphanumerical usernames are accepted'''. So how come that one isn't entitled to contribute here for the sole reason that they have an underscore or a gap in the desired username? I'm sure these restrictions have a strongly negative effect on the development of the Conservapedia, deterring a significant portion of contributors. Just look how many people work on Wikipedia, write popular pages on subject they now without bothering about admins imposing their views. Can you take a moment to imagine how many users, well, not only have been pressed to the wall next to the "open gate", but even compressed to death by the following crowd? It's way too surprising that the amount of users and articles is still important to you, as you state on the main page. If it's the case, I urge you to reconsider your policies and give more freedom to newcomers. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Just wait until you get to the part where you can't move pages, upload images or even edit at certain times. Assuming you won't be blocked to force you into registering again with a user name that follows the "first name, last initial" convention. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:24, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps I'd better wait for anyone ready to keep to the point? --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You talk about giving freedom to newcomers, but then dismiss me pointing out that newcomers indeed lack many freedoms they would expect to have? Well, have fun then. For what it's worth, I agree with the point about underscores in names. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Because instead of letting competent users respond to my claim you digress from the topic in an unconstructive manner, giving an outlet for your butthurt in a wrong place. --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 14:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Yes, insulting people will get you very far.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg Higher, higher :)] --[[User:Blackstar24|Blackstar24]] 15:30, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I could care less about the problems this section raises, I was pointing out that if your going to go around insulting people you aren't going to go anywhere here or anywhere--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:35, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservapedia is run strictly at the pleasure of [[Andy Schlafly]] as the founder, and to a lesser extent at that of the administrators. If you don't like their policies, then you have no business here. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 17:17, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I always thought that this site was run in the interest of presenting items without the liberal bias that is prevalent through out the internet and the MSM. The opinions and whims of [[Andy Schlafly]] should have little to no bearing on the content of the site so long as the information set forth is well argued and is able to be backed up.
:::::::::If this site is run at the pleasure of Mr. Schlafly, than I'm afraid it is no better than wikipedia. For Conservapedia and the conservative movement to succeed, we must hold ourselves to higher standards than those of wikipedia and the MSM.--[[User:MrLCharms|MrLCharms]] 14:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

== Talk:Evolution ==

On Monday, I made an edit to [[Talk:Evolution]] that removed the Student Panel Decision box. My reasoning (given in the same edit) was this:
{{quotebox|I have been bold and removed the Student Panel Decision. Now, before everybody is rushing to the Rollback and Ban buttons, allow me to explain why the text was utterly outdated and pretty much useless:
*"the article will remain protected indefinitely" - Yes, just like tons and tons of other articles. Big whoop. (This is a problem by itself, but one I won't tackle right here, right now.)
*"to protect it from inevitable vandalism" - .................right.
*"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way." - Aaaaand this is the main reason why I removed the decision:
**The Panel made the decision in April 2007. Right now, the earliest revision of the Evolution article is dated February 9, 2011. Without knowing what the April 2007 version looked like, what counts as a major change?
**Between the first and last visible revisions alone, the article gained ~10k - not a major change? To put the number into perspective, [[Date of the Exodus]] is smaller than the amount this article has grown.
**Those who have been around since back then know exactly that the article ''has'' changed in major ways since then.
*"Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review." - Too many issues to list here. I honestly don't think this applies (or ''should'' apply) anymore.
I hope there can be some discussion before I'm just bluntly reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)}}
Today, Conservative bluntly reverted my edit without discussion, making my last line there extra hilarious. Can we maybe have some actual discussion about this? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Sid, if you truly wanted discussion, you didn't need to remove the panel's notice to do that. Nor did you need your friend Horace in Australia who is obsessed with evolution/atheism/Conservapedia/myself to try to revert my reversion of you. What you wanted was an atheist revision of Conservapedia history. Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism. More anti-evolution content is not a major change. Evolutionists adding pseudoscience which is what you are ultimately seeking to do is a major change. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:32, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::Sure we can have a discussion. But as I understand it, the decision of the CP Panel still stands. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Please restore the edit history of the article to show that the article hasn't "changed in any major way". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:43, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sid wants to gut an article showing the folly of evolution because it gets a lot of web traffic. He would rather have a gutted article that gets little traffic. That is what this is about. If he really cared what the panel said, he would not have removed their notice. If Sid wants the panel or Andy to pare down the evolution article or do major revisions, then the frontal attack of removing the panel's notice while bold is very foolish from a human relations point of view. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:48, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Which is interesting because Every atheist i Personally know is nothing like that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 15:52, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
"Sid wants to gut an article..." He never asked for it to be unlocked, only for its full edit history to be restored. [[User:Lewis|Lewis]] 15:53, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Sid, your removing of the panel's notice betrayed you. You showed your true colors. Plus, there is the issue of {{personal remark removed}}. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:02, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I'm with Conservative here. Here it is our job to discuss, not censor. There seems to be no consensus at all to remove the student panel decision, and all the admins seem to disagree. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:06, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Second, the panel (who is made up of Andy's students) and Andy have had no problem with me adding more content reflecting the folly of evolutionism." That's an interesting claim considering it's directly contradicted by the notice you put back on the talk page. In fact, there's no evidence Mr. Schlafly or the student panel ever gave "Conservative" permission to do whatever he wanted to that article, nor is it an appropriate purpose for an encyclopedia article to communicate one's editorial position that "evolutionism" is "folly". So let's discuss whether "Conservative" taking the article over to the exclusion of every single other editor and in open defiance of the student panel's instructions not to change it in any "major way" and to submit proposed changes on the article talk page is going to be permitted. Some of the irrelevant nonsense "Conservative" has been stacking up in this article wouldn't be so bad if the article adequately explained the subject matter before attacking it, but it doesn't. I've asked Mr. Schlafly to clarify the editorial policy here regarding YEC vs. evolution, which he will not comment on, but I would eat my hat if the version of the article the student panel locked in 2007 was the same pro-YEC hit piece it is today. So sure, have a discussion about the student panel's notice but don't pretend it means anything anymore. Talk about revisionist history. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 16:46, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::It is certainly against the spirit that drives wiki projects. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:56, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, I'm not an atheist; and try to keep your little personal attacks to yourself. Please restore the history of the article so we can see what the April 2007 version looked like. Without the history, the Student Panel decision is pointless since it has no reference point to base itself on. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:15, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:(Side note: I see that Lewis just got a 2-year block by Conservative. Posting to the Community Portal is really a danger for one's wiki-health... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:21, 24 July 2011 (EDT))
::::Sid, I see you are fond of the exclusionary fallacy. Did Lewis have other edits as well? Second, if you think I am going to help a militant evolutionist, you are fooling yourself. By the way, your aforementioned frontal attack and your persistence in this matter remind me of Pickett's charge. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:26, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your refusal to let us see the April 2007 version is quite telling. Just as telling as blocking a guy for two years right after he pointed out your error while claiming that the block was for comments the user made yesterday. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:36, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sid, I have decided to retire from this battle that you cannot win. 是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:38, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Ich nehme dich beim Wort. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Both Please type in Englisch.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:41, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section break===
I've had a problem being able to review 2700+ deleted edits and am not familiar with the earlier wiki-battles over that entry. Perhaps you can encapsulate. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:33, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

:I have taken the liberty of moving this post to its own section because it may go on for a bit. The very rough overview is basically this:
:*Between February and March 2007, this article had been central to lots of editing back and forth.
:*Conservative was made sysop (on February 25, 2007) to make his changes to the article, and his intention to have this article locked forever became apparent. Note that I'm not exaggerating here. From [[Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 1#Conservative_Please_Stop|Archive 1]], a post from the day he was sysop'd:
:*:Whatter, I was made a sysop at Conservapedia so I could make the changes I proposed in the talk page of this article. I am guessing the article will not be unlocked given that it is a lightning rod for liberals wanting to vandalize or liberals wanting to change the article in order to give it a liberal point of view. Conservative 20:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative
:*Since that had been the magical time before locking anything forever became the norm, Andy promised to ask the anonymous Student Panel for their ruling, and the article was frozen in a fairly anti-evolution version.
:*Some time later (weeks later, I think?), the panel announced the decision that is still visible on [[Talk:Evolution]]. Aside from infinite protection, the central part of the ruling was "We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way."
:*There was a fair share of complaining about this (since having a mostly static article violates the wiki spirit), but the sysops (Conservative especially) held up the ruling as a shield against any further (pro-evolution) suggestions, so everybody kinda gave up and sighed.
:*However, Conservative kept editing the article as he pleased: Conservative's patrol log (which was only introduced on June 16, 2008 - more than a year after the ruling!) shows... 200+ edits for "Theory of evolution" and 950+ edits to "Evolution" (the article was moved in December 2008).
:*Between February 9, 2011 (first visible edit after Conservative erased the article history) and last week alone, the article gained roughly ten thousand characters. That's roughly the length of articles like [[Radiometric dating]] or [[Date of the Exodus]]. And this is just what happened during the last five to six months.
:*I am arguing that the Student Panel decision is utterly outdated and pointless: Locking forever is the norm for many articles anyway, nobody doubts that Conservative completely owns the article, and the "no major changes" clause is doubly absurd because the article has been constantly edited since then, and the point of reference (a version from March/April 2007) is unavailable.
:*That is why I removed the Student Panel decision and gave my reasoning in the form of the post I quoted up there.
:So the problem is not one of the many deleted edits, but rather the fact that there are so many edits and that they were deleted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:06, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you. Now I see the point more clearly. I do recall peripherally being aware of those happenings back then, but never was involved. The 2700+ edits maybe unrecoverable-I don't know. The overriding question is similar to the question of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (WP:OWN); also, it may be fair to assume much of the Student Panel of 2007 has graduated, and a new Student Panel may have to be asked to look at this version, if that overall policy remains in place. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== CAPTCHA Whitelist ==

I finally remembered to make this request while I was busy making a minor point: Could we add a few entries to [[MediaWiki:Captcha-addurl-whitelist|the CAPTCHA whitelist]]?

Right now, we have to solve a CAPTCHA even if we link to sites CP considers trustworthy, such as the [[Essay:Best News Sources|best news sources]], [[conservative blogs]], and the various [[conservative links]] (especially sections such as "Conservative Organizations" or "Creation Study"). Adding those sites to the whitelist would allow us to insert such links without hassle. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:59, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Everyone, please... ==

Come on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=894414 terms like treacherous backstabber] ARE personal remarks themselves. Are we not supposed to kind and considered? Please pay heed: ''Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.'' (Epehsians 4:32). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:RobS has turned on [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] in particular and Conservapedia in general. I feel the remark was factually accurate and justified. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Edit to add: And may I suggest you read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 23:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== User: RobS ==

At [[User talk:RobSmith]] I repeated my request for him to no longer post to my talk page or user page as I don't believe he respects my time plus I believe he is an unreasonable person. I shouldn't have had to repeat this request to him given that I told him I have a very busy schedule in the short term. I told RobS that if he has something very important and urgent to tell me please relay through Mr. Schafly as I believe he will be far less likely to send me unreasonable and trivial messages this way.

RobS just tried to bring up me blocking user BobSherman again via my talk page. You, myself and Karajou believes this person is a parodist. RobS knows BobSherman lied at our wiki. There is no pressing need to keep rehashing the blocking of a parodist liar.

If RobS continues to post to my talk page or user page, please remove his sysop powers which will preclude him from continuing to leave messages on my talk page. I also suggest that you, Karajou and RobS work out a block policy as Karajou and RobS have very different ideas about blocking. My position on blocking is somewhere between Karajou's and RobS's approach. Perhaps, no refinement of our blocking policy is needed and good judgment concerning our existing blocking policy is all that is needed and the differences in blocking is not the central issue but rather who has blocking powers and Sysop powers and who should no longer have those privileges. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:25, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:My modest proposal: Make Conservative a Bureaucrat so he can protect his talk page even from sysops and demote troublemakers who urge him to cooperate instead of treating this site as his personal property where he can do as he pleases. I believe it's the only logical step after tolerating his current behavior. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 07:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I fully support this. I am a great fan of [[User:Conservative]] having been brought here by his many irrefutable evidences and amusing essays. If it were not for him I would not be here to contribute and I am sure it is the same for many other users.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You obviously misunderstood Sid. Conservative, your blocking policy is that of an iron-fisted dictator. You have no credibility. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 08:30, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Unless your comment is a joke, Terry, you leave me with no option but to declare you a calumny-loving buffoon. [[User:Conservative]]'s content is of the highest quality. Indeed, I find myself running out of superlatives.--[[User:SpencerH|SpencerH]] 08:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::: "You sir are a blaggard and a poltroon. Good day sir!" made me smile [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:RobSmith&curid=11675&diff=893483&oldid=893477]]. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 09:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Whatever it takes to prevent RobS and his inflated ego to stop having a forum at my talk page, I am generally for. In his current "RobScentric" world, he appears to have no respect for polite and reasonable requests. I do not care if RobS is a Sysop/Admin or not, but if it takes removing his Sysop powers for him to no longer have a forum at my talk page for his inordinately sized ego, I am for it. As far as becoming a Bureaucrat at this point: If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. Lastly, barring RobS losing his Sysop powers, I have a feeling that over the coming days, weeks or months that Karajou and RobS will continue to have differences over blocking policy and that a blocking policy will be worked out. Given the current demands and priorities in my life, if a refinement of blocking policy were developed rather than a certain person or persons losing their Sysop or blocking powers, I would prefer that blocking policy be worked out by others. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:08, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Sysops not communicating violates the spirit of the wiki. Perhaps if you allowed other sysops the courtousy of communicating with you, there would not be misunderstandings, such as in the case of User:BobSherman. But I am appreciative of you allowing me 5 minutes of your time, per your e-mail, this September, or is it next September? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I have communicated with you RobS. I have also communicated to you that I have a lot on my plate right for the short term and I don't want to be pestered by an unreasonable person such as yourself who apparently likes to showboat on my talk page and mire me in needless and inane contention at this point. Barring you seeing the light on this matter and apparently still believing that your posts to me have any importance to me (which they do not), I will recommend that you lose your Sysop status if you continue your behavior which another Sysop believes should happen as well. In the meantime, I suggest that you post your supposed matters of great importance and urgency to me on Aschlafly's talk page and if he feels they are important and urgent, I am sure he will relay them to me. Thank you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Please, no incivility and personal attacks; those are blockable offenses. And Sysops need to be held to the same standard other members of the Conservapedia Community are held. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:26, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, by the way, as you probably know, I did more than offer you 5 minutes of my time in September as I suggested via email a September meeting with you, Karajou and possibly Aschlafy to help resolve the blocking conflicts which have arisen as of late. I received no reply which is no great tragedy to me. Given your most recent behavior, I have since rescinded my offer for such a September meeting. Perhaps, your statement above is just a matter of sloppy reading on your part, but I believe your statement on this matter reflects why I believe you are often an unreasonable person. I know it still may amaze you that I am no longer interested in what you have to say, but I would start believing it and reflecting on why this has happened. I have nothing further to say on this matter to you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:42, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm sorry, I'm just having a very difficult time understanding any of this. I can not communicate with (or for that matter, nobody can) on your user page. I can not email you cause you've spam blocked me; no wait, you un-spma blocked me. I cannot discuss with you (or for that matter, no one can) on regular Conservapedia project pages because you delete and oversight the discussions. You come to Andy's page with charges, yet have no diffs or evidence, cause you deleted and oversighted it. How is that not (a) misues of sysop priveleges; (b) trolling? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Did you send an email that reads,
::::*''Here are my conditions for such a meeting:
:::::''3. I am not saying this in a high handed or proud manner, but in a spirit of being practical given various goals and matters which I feel called to in my life. Without any further ado here is what is workable: Until further notice, from this point onward, '''RobS can't take up more than 5 minutes of my time per month. ''' ''
::::This is not conducive to collaborative content. This is not cooperative editing or helping to build an internet community. You have done nothing in four years to help define [[Conservapedia:Vandalism]], yet how many editors have you arbitrarily blocked on site for that offense? Stop trolling me and wasting my time. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Rob, I don't know if you are a Christian or not, but I urge you to read [[Matthew 1-9 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Matthew 7:5]]. "Hypocrite! Throw the beam out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly to throw out the mote in your brother's eye." Leave [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] alone.--[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 19:00, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Arbitrary and unfair blocking===
Let me explain at some length, from personal experience, why I feel strongly about arbitrary and unfair blocking. I hesitate bringing it up, because of the personal emotional torment it wreaked on me, unfairly, all the result of overzealous ideological partisans, too quick on the banhammer, and determined to take revenge on their enemies.

I was working on an anti-communism series in Wikipedia, and because of the specialized nature of it, [[Chip Berlet]] <ref>Berlet is a former National Lawyers Guild Vice President, which a Congressional Committee has described as "The Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party".</ref> was recruited to vet, verify, and challenge the information for NPOV purposes. Unbeknownst to me and prior to my arrival in Wikipedia, Berlet had for many years studied the Lyndon LarRouche movement and successfully obtained Arbitration sanctions (banning and blocking) against several "Larouche editors" in several Wikipedia Arbitration cases.<ref>At the time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LTA/HK WP:RfA Lyndon LaRouche 1 & Lyndon LaRouche 2]; a third and other cases have since been added.</ref> The sanctioned users become notorious sockpuppets, hunted by overzealous sysops, and in constant conflict with Chip Berlet. As Berlet and my Mediation over anti-communism broke down, Berlet labeled me the head of a cabal of "Larouche editors" and being "the most problematic."

In dealing with Berlet, I had crossed paths with some of his old enemies. Berlet seized on these open-wiki communications to drag me before the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee under the pretext that "Nobs and others acting in concert"<ref> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01/Archive02#Arbitration_filed_naming_you Nobs and others acting in concert]</ref> were harassing him. Needless to say, the "others" were sanctioned "LaRouche editors" and this guilt by association prompted the Arbitration Committee to accept a hearing on the case. But I had no knowledge of this ongoing wiki-battle between Wikipedia and the Lyndon LaRouche organization, of which now I was at the center. In the process, my real life identity became known, and I was now being seriously defamed as a "LaRouchie" in an open forum, accessible to Google Search engines. No less than three times did I make motions to separate and remove my name from the LaRouche editors, all denied.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Workshop#Motion_2_by_Nobs01_on_.22acting_in_concert.22</ref> In frustration, I made incivil comments and was banned, with no immediate recourse to clear my name from slanders.

The idea of me being a sympathizer to Lyndon LaRouche is ludicrous, as is commonly known now. Yet it took me years to clear my name over several forums, gaining public statements from Arbitrators and others connected with the case, that I had indeed been unfairly slandered. See for example, a template in Wikipedia to keep track of the abuses and rulings against "LaRouche editiors", if you scroll down to the "Arbiration 2005", the first case reads "N__and others"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LaRouchetalk</ref>, what it took me to get the "acting in concert" removed, and no direct reference to my username, "Nobs", was a nightmare. But I still regard the emotional stress and damage done, by overzealous, ideological sysops, hell bent on stamping out the wiki's enemies, as troublesome.

Then a younger generation of sysops comes along, taking their cue from others, and all they see is "ratvandal", or "larouchie", and a real life identity or username connected to it, and the Terminator mentality takes over. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with, no compromise, pity or remorse. Nevermind facts, or misunderstandings. They just have it set in their minds they are doing right, and good, by wielding the banhammer. Never thinking for a moment those are real people out there, with hopes and dreams, and real lives. These sysops are just on autopilot, kill kill kill, destroy destroy destroy.

This may seem harsh, but reliving some of this reminds me why I've tried to learn to be civil and patient, and understanding, even to those I disagree with. I made it my lot to try and be a model of interaction, even in the toughest, most controversial, and emotional disputes. This dispute we're having here, is not really between two sysops -- I actually like the guy/gal/other making these charges. He just needs to lighten up with people. If he has such strong ideological convictions, he should at a minimum be able to defend them. And a locked user page, or redirects on article talk pages, is just pointless. This discussion is simply about being fair with users and demanding the same standards of civility from sysops we expect from editors. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

===Notes===
{{reflist}}

== New proposal regarding the ban policy ==

I would like to propose a procedure with regards to the banning policy here at CP. This would apply to situations where people are suspected of being parodists, or other situations that are not as clear-cut as blatant vandalism such as inserting pure gibberish, blanking pages, etc.

We all have bad days sometimes.

We sometimes write things on the internet that comes across to other people as sounding harsh or incoherent, or that doesn't quite get the point across we're trying to make.

We sometimes read things on the internet we take in the wrong way.

We sometimes get on the wrong side of someone without intending to, and then the hostilities begin.

Instead of one person being responsible for the decision whether or not a person is a parodist, etc., how about a procedure where that person is brought before a committee. The person nominating the possible offender must present his case, complete with '''hard evidence''' that proves the accusations, not just state that "I believe this, thus it's true." Other editors should be allowed to submit evidence, either pro or con, for a certain length of time before a decision is reached.

This evidence needs to be presented in a clear and transparent manner, without anyone altering it in any way.

I also propose that the committee consist of both sysops and regular editors, thus providing a greater range of opinions. If an editor (either regular or a sysop) is directly involved with the situation, they should not be allowed to be a member of the committee.

Thanks, [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:27, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SharonW, Conservapedia believes is has strong evidence that RobertSherman was an atheist posing as a Christian and that he was a parodist. AShlafly, Karajou and myself agree on the matter. RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP and appears to want to take an appeasing Caspar Milquetoast policy towards parodists. His "argument" seems to be is that there are going to be some repeat offenders. Fine "reasoning". Let fold up all the world's police departments because there are going to be repeat offenders to reasonable laws. While I am all for working out difference where possible with others, there is no point in trying to reason with unreasonable people. However, if such a committee were developed, I would suggest that RobS not be a member of it. By the way, I know RobertSherman and compnay would love for me to spend more time regarding discussing his blocking but I am not willing to do it given my current priorities. I suggest that all inquiries concerning his blocking be directed towards Karajou and/or Aschlafly. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::*'' RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP''
:::::How do you presume to know what I know? How do you know CP User:BobSherman is indeed RW User:Socal? How do you know (assuming both are the same user) where this user lied? Did he lie at CP or RW? Isn't this similiar to the case of User:Iduan, whom an RW founding editor (User:GodlessLiberal) claimed Iduan was his sock, when indeed Iduan was not? And people suffer, real life, live people, suffer because of your assumptions, and presumptions.
:::::The only reason I ever became involved in the Conservapedia project was because I was the innocent victim of a grossly unfair, and lenghty block at Wikipedia. Trust me, I'm sensitive to this subject. I'm also a veteran of the Wikipedia Review Forum (I'm #16 out of the 3000+ exhiled WP dissenters & exhilees) and have had numerous discussions dozens of wiki editors & sysops over blocking policy on several wikis. You sir (or ma'am), Mr./Ms. User:Conservative, need to pay more attention to building a community within this project, and apply your talents to writing a definition of vandalism & parody before you (a) block people for such offenses, or (b) impugn the integrity of other good faith users, myself included. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sharon, I am unaware of any recent cases where a sysop (a) banned someone who either (b) apologized sincerely or (c) it turns out hadn't done anything wrong. If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:22, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have to agree with Sharon. I am not familiar with RobertSherman, and I am rather confussed as to why he was brought up in this discussion at all? I do not see a reason why advocating for sysop accountability and a consistant, coherant block policy is wrong. I would imagine that users would be much more willing to engage in this project if they had clearly defined rights, and knew what was a blockable offense and why. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 14:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

How many casual or part-time editors have ceased contributing to the wiki because of uncertainty over the banning policy? Right now, banning often seems arbitrary and uneven – sometimes as though it depends on the mood of the banning editor. I know personally I have stopped myself from offering my opinion and/or edits on different articles because I see things from a different angle or have different information.

What's the harm in making the less obvious banning situations a consensus of opinion, and transparent to all as well? What's the harm in allowing the accused editor to make his/her case in the open, and to allow different editors to give their opinion on the situation? It might not change the ultimate decision, but it's a more democratic process. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:05, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ed says,
:*''If contributors are '''actually''' finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this.''
:*Here's the problem: 40,000 registered users have been blocked for vandalism, and 10,000,000 + IP's, affecting an estimated 30,000,000 potential users. These blocks were handed out for vandalism, yet here ([[Conservapedia:Vandalism]]) is the Guideline blocking Sysops have to guide them after four years.
:*If there were any potental good faith editors who wanted to be helpful in defining vandalism, they probably were blocked years ago as a suspected sock of lcewedge or horace. Them and the whole state or province they live in.
:*Now the Range blocks are undone, yet Old Guard sysops ''still'' block on sight for anything they don't like, despite the floodgates being opened. Conservapedia Sysops have learned nothing from their colossal errors in dealing with vandalism, have yet to even define it, nor hold themselves to the same standards of editing conduct they require of others.
:*Establishing a Commitee won't work, at least not yet; there just aren't enough editors allowed to participate at any level.
:*Blocking policy is in serious need of overhaul, if Conservapedia is serious at all about building an online collaborative wiki community.
:*Sysops need to understand they are not God, and can and will be held accountable to the extent of losing their sysop powers for failing to abide CP's own rules and standards of conduct it requires of others (the few we have).
:*Some editors were punished with blocks just for daring to interject into this important discussion. This kind of arbitrary blocking has got to stop.
:*CP needs a serious reform movement; it's not about personality disputes between sysops, or payback, or roasting an abusive sysop. It's about building a collaborative community which includes atheists, liars, homosexuals, sinners, drunks, drug addicts, felons, ex-cons, university professors, doctors, lawyers, hollywood starlets and anyone else who wants to register an account, abide by CP's Commandments & Guidelines and contribute constructive content without an ideological litmus test for the user. That has always been CP's mission. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:33, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::I have stayed out of this debate because I don't find it relevant to my goals on/with Conservapedia but i must say these proposals by Rob sound reasonable (although we can probably do without drunks and liars). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:37, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::MRellek, if you want to attempt to further refine CP's blocking guidelines/policies I would not be against that. I would be against RobS writing any blocking policy on parodist since he cannot spot parodist material when he sees it and/or is unwilling to ban parodists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:41, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Fortunately for site users, you don't own this website, neither do you single-handedly make policy. Should we take a poll of site users who want to see you head up a policy reform committee? or do you think they may be terrorized to even participate, for fear of reprisal block, given the unhealthy editing atmosphere you help create for several years now? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::If anyone has any useful suggestions concerning refining blocking policy, I don't see why they couldn't be suggested and incorporated into our current policy. And there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas concerning this matter. That could start immediately. Of course, given the current authority structure of Conservapedia for any policies to be binding, they would have to be approved by Aschafly or a committee authorized by Andy to make binding policy. Absent of a parodist defining policy being written for encyclopedia articles by September, I am considering writing one. If such a parodist defining policy were written for encyclopedia articles, I would suggest it incorporate purposefully setting up [[Straw man fallacy|strawman arguments]] and/or purposefully using churlish/boorish/cloddish language (usually combined with providing no evidence).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:34, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::*''there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas ''
::::::Oh yes, two were blocked just for posting to the above thread. Does that aid in encouraging others to contribute? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I helped formulate our policies, four years ago, shortly after I joined. I was made a sysop much more quickly than I expected (in a mere 8 days), possibly because of my extensive Wikipedia experience: developer rights to the database, the first electeed "bureaucrat", etc.

If there have been 40,000 blocks that is because our project has suffered an unprecedented onslaught of vandals, particularly of the "stealth" kind who plant ridiculous errors so that they can undermine the project by blaming us for those errors.

I asked for examples of unfair blocks and got none. Therefore the subject is closed, and there will be no policy debate. Nice try, though. You almost had me going. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, look at my block log for 8 examples, all of them wrong. I was not AlanS. I criticized one of your computer edits, and I criticized one of Foxtrot's math edits. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, Did [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893481 this warrant a one day block] in the discussion thread above? He made a perfectly valid point I may be in agreement with. I'm sure it was helpful encouraging other's to get involved in these important discusions. Then look at the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Sid_3050 intemperate vindictive attitude] of the blocking sysop. None of this in conducive to a pleasant editing atmosphere. We should be humble enough to admit where we've failed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

::I'm very hesitant to contribute to this discussion at the moment, but there are some points which I feel need to be made.
::First: Sharon, I really don't think your proposal will work, simply because of the sheer number of vandals who attack the site. We've all seen the periodic avalanches of new editors (often with profane usernames) who seek to do as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible. I don't think anyone would argue that such editors deserve a review process before being banned. Sometimes, an immediate and unilateral decision has to be made.
::Second: I think it would be a good idea to step back and ask: are the vandals getting what they want? Have they successfully gotten people so paranoid that we overreact? I have to be honest: during some of those vandalism sprees, I've been VERY tempted to ban new users who haven't yet made any questionable edits, simply because they happen to have created their accounts during the spree. There's a part of my brain that says, "Odds are it's another account from the same vandal. Why give him a chance to do more damage?"
::That, I would argue, is exactly the mindset they want to cultivate. And, I have to be honest, I AM a little bit nervous posting this, despite the fact that I've been here for years and nobody has ever had a bad word to say about my contributions. The tension here is so thick that it feels a little like walking on eggshells...which happen to be sitting on top of landmines.
::Do I think that some editors have gotten undeservedly blocked? Yes, probably. I don't think it's necessarily being done out of malice; I think in a lot of cases, it's just that we've all had to deal with so many vandals that we're a little high-strung. What's the old saying? "Once bitten, twice shy?" Well, Conservapedia has been bitten over and over and over again.
::I do know one thing. The vandals have to be having a field day watching long-serving senior members of the project duke it out in a very public fashion like this. Is giving them what they want really a good idea?
::Please: find a way to work this out. Those of us who are trying to do good work here rely on you.
::Respectfully, --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:43, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Ben, you make some ''very'' good points, some discussion-worthy points, and one time, you utterly missed the point.
:::The bad news first: Sharon's proposal isn't about ''vandals'', but rather about ''parodists''. Nobody is suggesting to hold a meeting when some idiot is running across the wiki, replacing articles with [http://www.woosk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/tits.gif "BOUNCING TITS!!!"] or something like that. This is only about parodists.
::::[tangent]
::::Now, this admittedly is a bit tricky because the only written [[Conservapedia:Parody|policy-definition of "parody"]] on this isn't really hitting the nail on the head. It's ''a'' definition of "parody", but not ''the'' definition we're implicitly using here. We're talking about people whose edits are over-the-top by normal standards, but well within the accepted limits of Conservapedia. If you go pretty much anywhere and argue that the Bible needs to be retranslated because it's too liberal, or that Jesus disproved General Relativity and proved Quantum Mechanics, you will be thrown out for being an obvious parodist (as per the definition we currently got written down). On this site, however, all of these things have been established as insights by the site founder. If I suddenly started agreeing with Andy that the beauty of fall leaves disproves evolution, would I be a parodist?
::::An effective approach to parody is difficult because Conservapedia's baseline for "normal and acceptable" is not quite where even most other conservatives would place it - both for content and conduct. This is why parodists like Bugler managed to become so successful: They imitated the worst traits of certain sysops, thus blending in perfectly from the POV of most sysops. Just to remind people of an uncomfortable truth: Bugler was one of the nastiest people imaginable and drove out several people who might have helped the site and pretty much got away with it to the point of ''almost becoming a sysop''. (He was only "caught" because of technicalities, not because of his behavior.)
::::The solution lies less in worrying about whether somebody genuinely believes what he's writing and more in reforming this wiki from the top so abusive idiots who make absurd edits stand out properly again. As long as parody is indistinguishable from normal behavior of our supposed role models, it's hard to really justify a ban.
::::[/tangent]
:::The point I kinda disagree with, but which I still find a valid question: Should we do all this bickering here in public? I agree that especially the huge discussions on this page are not CP's finest hour. But that doesn't mean that we should drag mindless bickering behind the stage, and it also doesn't mean that we should simply stop. It means that we should ''do better''. Not just in discussions, but also as a whole. We need to make CP as a community a better and more inviting place. I agree with Rob that we need to rework consistent policies (that aren't scattered all over the place) and that we need to actually enforce them, no matter what rank the offender has.
:::Your very good points are about the current tension (eggshells, landmines, etc.) and that it's ''hard'' at times to be fair and just. Because yes, it is. Of course it is. Having the banhammer is great power. And to echo a terribly overused Spider-Man quote: With great power comes great responsibility. The people wielding it need to be able to handle it. If sysops start using it to retaliate against people they don't like, or if they get twitchy and start banning people who haven't done anything simply because they happened to register around the same time as a vandal, they should either take a voluntary time-out to cool off or give the hammer back. Bringing back something from my tangent: Sysops are supposed to be the ''role models'', and they ''will'' lead by example. They ''need'' to have a cooler head than the regular users, and they ''mustn't'' let their raw emotions guide their actions. That is one of the keys to building a healthy community: Be a good leader, and people will start following you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== Please revoke Conservative's Sysop, Block, and Administrator Rights ==

Please revoke conservative's sysop, block, and administrator rights, for flagrant and repeated violations of expected standards for sysops.

You may recall that I wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#Enforceable_rules_for_sysop_conduct this], which was a logical consequence of things that you said you agreed with fully. Now I am not a sysop, and therefore don't have much voice in such matters, but the fact is that what I wrote is still present on the Community Portal page. Furthermore, user Conservative said that "[my] post has some merit."

In that section, I said that '''there need to be sanctions for repeated and flagrant violations'''. That means '''suspension of sysop/admin rights'''.

Furthermore, quite a bit of policy material has come into existence, pointing out that it is improper for someone with blocking powers to use those powers frivolously, or for a person with deletion or oversight powers to use those powers unless the material being deleted is libelous.

User Conservative has, as is well known to everyone, engaged in repeated and flagrant violations of the standards for sysops. The repeated deletion of BobSherman's user and talk pages are examples, but there are many more.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:46, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:::SamHB, very melodramatic. Your bold text suggest you are very angry. I suspect that is because I asked you to show me how its done and create outstanding content that would gain a following and I also asked you if you currently have a following. By the way, I am flattered that you have followed my content for several years now. :) Best wishes in your off wiki pursuits because I don't think your crusade to remove my administrator rights is going to give you a sense of accomplishment. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:The bold text was copied directly from the other edit, where it had been placed for emphasis, not due to anger. You also seem to be referring to a discussion taking place at [[Talk:Essay:_Penn_Jillette%27s_walrus_slide_vs._thin_Christian_lady_dancers]]. Please continue the discussion there, if you wish. You will see that I already responded to you. Or continue it on your talk page, if you wish. Or mine. By the way, I already have quite a sense of accomplishment. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:27, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::SamHB, I still think your quest is quixotic. By the way, given your liberal leanings, I would be remiss if I didn't mention to you that in the [[Western World]], the left in many cases is running out other peoples money to spend on their misadventures so your in good company in terms of pursuing quixotic quests. I have two parting words for you: "Austerity budget". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

== RobS becoming a pawn and a "useful idiot" of an atheist website ==

RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication. Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy.

I think RobS is at heart an unstable egotist who thinks he has great influence over members of an atheist website. The truth is that if they don't respect God, he is kidding himself if he thinks they respect him. Although he did do a service in unblocking all of those IPs and I think clarifying block policy and not having an overly aggressive block policy is good, I do think now that RobS is now morphing into what the Soviets call [http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot "a useful idiot"] and he is in the process of becoming a pawn of an atheist website.

If he continues down his present path, I see him losing his Admin rights. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:16, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:Conservative - you and I have discussed this in an entirely civil manner to this point, and my opinion of you has not changed with this section, but I am requesting that you remove this section on your own accord (but, in the interest of full disclosure, I am sending an email to Andy); even in quotes, "useful idiot" is a personal attack - and I am convinced that this type of name calling is not beneficial to the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:33, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::The term "useful idiot" is political term and I have also heard it used outside of politics as well. Here is a definition: http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Useful_idiot I see no reason retract this information and I am very positive that RobS doesn't want me to oversight it given his previous statements. In short, I think the shoe fits and I am giving others a warning. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:41, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

::::Conservative, I quote from your source: "The implication was that the person in question was naïve, foolish, or in willful denial" - I maintain its not keeping with site decorum to call an established editor any of these things (certainly at least calling an editor either of the first two - "naive" or "foolish" - would constitute a personal attack).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:48, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:I also see Rob losing his sysop rights soon. After all, he is trying to do three things: (1) Make the rules clearer so people have a clear idea what can get them blocked and don't have to live in constant fear of breaking some obscure rule interpretation. (2) Apply the rules also to sysops. (3) Generally hold sysops accountable for their actions and limit abuse of powers.
:The last person who tried to drag the site down this absolutely horrible path was some liberal... what was his name... oof... oh yeah, ''Philip J. Rayment''. You know, the guy who tried to stop Bugler and TK from driving out everybody? The guy who actually dared to ask ''why'' some people were banned and wanted to see ''evidence''? Yeah, that went well, didn't it?
:Because we all know that a community will grow if a group of people can waltz all over the place with editorial authority, no pressure to follow the rules, and the power to block anybody for any reason.
:It's a true tragedy that Andy is looking away as Rob is trying to salvage and help this community. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I have found RobS's proposals quite sensible. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:56, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Sid, you are trying to cloud the central issue. I clearly said I was not against clarifying block policy. It's RobS's other behavior that I have a problem with. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::But wasn't the central issue to start with your own behavior Conservative? It seems to me you dislike having your own behavior called into question so believe it is Rob causing trouble. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:02, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I say both of them are causing trouble. Conservative is doing things people find wrong, People state this, Rob backs them up, which from Conservatives point of view is wrong, they argue, Conservative/Rob takes it to pages across the wiki while others either side with or against Rob/Conservative, pushing the fight to multiple fronts and spamming andy with "new message!". So both are to blame for exasperating the situation. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:08, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Max, I stand by what I wrote and I am issuing no retractions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::::::::The central issue is indeed Conservative's behaviour. Years ago when Conservapedia had an abuse page it was almost entirely filled with complaints about Conservative. I don't understand why he has been allowed to run amok for so long. All Rob is doing is trying to introduce the rule of law to the site. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:13, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::No, the central issue is the power structure on this site being so screwed up that sysops have all the rights while regular editors have pretty much none (while conversely the sysops don't have to follow the rules while editors have to follow all of them and then some). Conservative's behavior (rapid and frequent deletion of articles or talk pages, oversighting of edits, refusal to communicate constructively, etc.) is simply the most noticeable symptom. Rob's attempts to start a sweeping policy reform and to, as you said, introduce the rule of the law to the site, would indeed restrict Conservative's power abuse, but it would also be a solid step to fix the structural issues the site has. (Which also nicely explains why no other sysop is actually siding with Rob.) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::JarradD, I have never been popular among atheist/evolutionist whiners. I have a feeling this trend is going to continue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::No. You are not popular among editors who wish to be treated with respect and according to the rules. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Your Fairly well-acquainted with the anti-conservtive viewpoint for somebody who made an account 20 minutes ago. You reek of sock-puppetry/ill-intentions. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:31, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Why do I reek of ill intent? I want to see this site succeed. Which is why I want properly enforced rules rather than bullying and arbitrary authority. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:34, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Because you seem to know a lot about this situation despite only having just made your account, which either means you pointlessly lurked for a while or your a parodist. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:35, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Somewhat fitting, given that part of the problem is that various people who made good points in the past have been banned because the sysops don't like people who dare to speak up. And Sean, PLEASE don't throw around "parodist" so easily. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I have sided with neither Rob or Conservative. I am pointing out that a new user who suddenly comes into a debate speaking with knowledge of the situation is going to appear suspicious. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::A parodist is someone who pretends to be something they are not. There is no evidence JarradD is a parodist. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anything I have written could be regarded as parody. You have successfully derailed this discussion. Congratulations Sean. How about getting back on topic. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more. As it stands, he brings more doubt and distrust by getting involved in a dispute between Senior Admins despite having no reason to fully understand the situation. The fact his first edits were to get involved raise even more doubts to his intentions--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:45, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::*''If he was a user who had been here for more then half an hour I would be inclined to trust him more.''
::::::::::::::How is that possible? they all get banhammered at the door. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:03, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::If anyone's intentions are suspect, it is you. You have totally derailed this discussion. It was a discussion on a vitally important topic and you have made it all about me. Could you please attempt to get back on topic? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:50, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
I would like to return this discussion to matters of significance. The feeling among a number of editors is that there is a lack of uniformity in enforcement of rules and that some sysops act in an arbitrary and, sometimes, capricious manner. What is sought is, in essence, the rule of law. A system wherein all editors know where they stand and are not subject to whim. In my view this is a hugely important issue for this site. In any venture these issues are important, but in a co-operative venture such as a wiki they are absolutely vital. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
: If I recall correctly, haven't people been banned from Conservapedia for being a member of an atheistic site before? If we do want consistency of rules/sysop accountability and if Rob is indeed a member of said site, then shouldn't he face a penalty? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:11, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::How cute of you to start enforcing the most idiotic "rule" ever that was likely introduced by a troll who wanted CP to fail. But hey, sure, all for it. I'm sure Ed Poor will agree; after all, he has no account on-... oh, wait. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:22, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::And doesn't Conservative have an account in the name Newton on a certain site? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:26, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::In his/her world, there is no evidence at all unless he/she personally admits anything, such as his/her gender or his/her name. So what makes you think he/she would admit his/her username on any site? Give it up, liberals! --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:28, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Indeed. We seek him/her/it here. We seek him/her/it there. Those Frenchies seek him/her/it everywhere. Is he/she/it in heaven? Is he/she/it in hell? That d****d elusive Pimpernel. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:37, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::: Obviously Conservative is not a member of that atheist website because it would be really stupid of him to complain about Rob's association with it while simultaneously holding an account there. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 20:53, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, it would. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 20:55, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

Gentlemen, may I respectfully suggest that Mr. Schlafly's talk page is not the place to hold such debates? And that it would be both prudent and considerate to move this discussion to another forum? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:19, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:Seeing how Andy seems determined not to chime in, this may be for the best. I'd support a mass move of the last few sections (starting with "User: RobS") to [[Conservapedia:Community Portal‎]]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::I disagree, I think we need Andy to weigh in here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:58, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::You mean the many sections he has so far choosen to not get involved in?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:12, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Let me explain Conservapedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology Kremlinology] (tea leaf reading): If the site owner likes the idea, he'll speak up. If he's neutral or negative, silence. That's traditoinally how Senior CP Sysops read the tea leaves. Conclusion:
::::*neither RobS nor User: Conservative desysoped;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed] has been repealed;
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=894017&oldid=892763 Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interfact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors] is added;
::::*and moving forward with other initiatives has been endorsed.
::::Now, somebody want to go around with a mop bucket after [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism_and_obesity&action=historysubmit&diff=893866&oldid=893394 User:Conservative's incivility here] and hang the {{[[Template:personal remark removed|personal remark removed]]}}, per [[CP:Guidelines#Civility]]? I'd do it, but I have a COI. Let's help this man/woman/other become a better editor. He/she/it needs to learn how to play nice with others. Please treat him/her/other respectfully. But remember, his/her/other days of being an ''allegedly'' abusive sysop are over. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:23, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::It would be nice if we didn't have to give a PC-esque list of pronouns for him. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:25, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::The user has requested their gender identity not be disclosed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I wouldn't suggest trying to sweep this discussion under the rug. I believe Admin Karajou wants to give his thoughts to Ashlafly on this matter. And of course, I can certainly consider asking other Sysops to weigh in as well. I would suggest that RobS not thrash around in this tar pit he has jumped in. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:39, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Please do. The question is moving the discussion to Community Portal. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:43, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::RobS, I have been asked if I felt you should lose your Admin privileges and if the benefits you bring outweigh your costs. So far, I have said that you should not lose your Admin status. You most recent behavior which I mentioned above, is tipping the scale in the wrong direction. I suggest making some changes and avoid trying to dodge issues. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I've read it all. I'm an egotistical blowhard. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 27 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::I certainly don't think the discussion should be swept under the rug, but I do feel that consideration for Andy merits moving it to a more appropriate venue. I support the idea of moving the discussion to Community Portal. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:17, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::If this discussion is attempted to be pushed under the rug and RobS chooses not to address matters. This certainly would be another sign that RobS should lose his Admin status. If a an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion, this certainly does not work in his favor. I can't speak for others, but I am certainly not willing to give RobS infinite second chances in terms of how I feel about his behavior. I have also been told that Karajou wants to join the discussion on Ashlafly's talk page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:29, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::RobS, I can live with you being an egotistical blowhard. On the other hand, a backstabbing untrustworthy egotistical blowhard is a problem. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::"If a (sic) an Admin behaves badly and does not want to take responsibility for his behavior, but wishes to play power games and try stifle discussion..." I'm sorry. Who were we talking about Pot? --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:42, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
*''play power games and '''try stifle discussion'''''
:My friend, User:Conservative, seriously, who stifles discussion by locking their user page? who stifles discussion by placing redirects on article talk pages? who stifles discussion by deleting other Sysops comments? who stifles discussion by oversighting other sysop's comments? Need I remind you, you started these threads claiming I wanted to discuss things with you and you want no discussion on your talk page. Then, you came here, claiming some offense, but deleted and oversighted the evidence. Do I have to point out to you, what other's see, extremely erratic behavior? I'm sorry, but this really borders on trolling. If it wasn't for the fact Conservapedia can be improved from discussing some of these problems, I'd really rather remain silent. I'm sorry, but this is not an issue of personalities, it regards the future of this project. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:46, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::RobS, you can stop pretending we are friends. I don't have untrustworthy backstabbers as my friends. Second, people are free to leave me messages to me. I know you like to whine about my talk page, but please restrain yourself because a user's talk page is still his/her castle. Next, I am certainly amenable to admitting where I can make improvements and the talk pages on comedy/satires on now open. On the other hand, I have yet to see you apologize for your backstabbing behavior. And your poor behavior in terms of altering my talk page was also never apologized for. Of course, your modus operandi is avoiding taking responsibility for your bad behavior. This does not work in your favor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Am I the only who thinks all Admins should have their talkpages left unlocked so people can ask them things? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I'm curious, you keep mentioning Rob backstabbing you User: Conservative. What are you referring to?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 00:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think he is referring to when RobS questioned his Admin responsibility when it came to deletions. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Right now I am neutral however. I see Conservative's points on this, but Rob has done a lot of good work for this wiki too. I think it is best of we leave to to Andy to decide. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:53, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
'''RobS is now spouting to some atheists that I supposedly stated something in a communication with him about one of my articles. It wasn't very positive. Of course, I have no trust in his malevolent recollection concerning our communication.''' Please be very careful when communicating with RobS. Do not trust him. '''Based on this discussion with some atheists who have shown malevolence towards this website, I think RobS has little reluctance to try to stab others in the back if it strikes his fancy.''' [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:55, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Hold on. Why is RobS even a member of an Atheist website. Surely he of all people knows that they will not accept the logic of conservatism and that it is a hopeless cause to try to convert them that way. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::There is converting going on. I just received an email saying RobS is becoming more and more like the members of a atheist vandal website. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:04, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::In that case I am not sure RobS should be given this much power, if he has such close affiliations with sites that support such illogical viewpoints. RobS, you are a good contributor, but I'm sorry; if what Conservative says is true, then it is better safe than sorry. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Anyone at Conservapedia who has an account at the atheist vandal website should be punished. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:45, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

::::::::If this atheist vandal website is wikipedia, than I should admit that I have an account there. However I have not used it for quite a few months now. I think it would be wrong to punish people like me, who only were trying to help when they made Wikipedia accounts but have since moved on. [[User:MorrisF]]
:::::::::I have an account at just about every "wiki" type site. I was an active member of "the trio of wiki" (Cpedia, <s>censored</s>, Wpedia) and two sysops had no problem in allowing me to return here. So why make such a comment, BradleyS? [[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[Special:Contributions/JonG|~]] 08:09, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

===Section Break===
Wait a minute. Why were Conservative's posts replaced with "Personal attacks removed"? He never personally attacked anyone. Plus, many of his key points were removed. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 10:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=894161&oldid=894159 this user did it.] ive since reverted it.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

::SeanS, that's a diff, not a user. I replaced Conservative's several personal attacks with the template that is prescribed at [[Guidelines#Civility]]. NickP, I cannot tell if you are being serious. Conservative's post in this section are full of personal attacks against another user, that user has been conscientiously polite in response. If the personal attacks that I removed are the key points then that merely shows them to be invalid points in the first place. SeanS, you have now reinstated the personal attacks, in clear contravention of site policy. Please read the policy, and replace the templates. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Yes, I know what they are. IF you notice, the Diff has your username in it, therefor, I can say who did what. And if it is indeed a personal attack, why make it harder for an admin to see what it is and judge accordingly? --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 23:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Also note that a lot of the comments you removed were not really personal attacks. When Conservative said that RobS was a "useful idiot", he wasn't actually calling RobS stupid. "Useful Idiot" is actually someone who sympathizes with the enemy, as Conservative was accusing RobS. "Egotistical" is not a personal attack; it is a critique (though arguably impolite) on a user's behavior, not an attack on the person. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:34, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::In the same way that "Sleazy Nazi", for example, is really just an assessment of a person's moral fibre and political views, not a personal attack. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 23:39, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his Administrator rights ==

I now agree with another Sysop that RobS should lose his administrator rights. I regret to say that RobS is engaging in inexcusable behavior which was previously described on this talk page, but has now been whitewashed from this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am considering lobbying harder for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:07, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== I know I am a new poster ==
But I have been registered for some time and I have to say one of the main reasons I have not tried to contribute here is because of the behaviour of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. His childish 'satire' articles have done more to make me re-consider than anything else on here, and I have already spoted several parody entries in articles such as the article on Motorcycles. About the only thing that would make me become a regular contributor would be if [[User:RobS|RobS]] were able to succeed in his attempts to reign in the more idiotic 'contributions' of [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. But no doubt I will now be blocked for daring to voice this opinion, despite Aschlafly having said previously that dissenting opinions are not censored on Conservapedia. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:32, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Davidspemcer, If you do choose to contribute in the future, I would suggest using the Firefox browser as it would enable you find your spelling mistakes (behavior and spotted). Second, if you want to show you are a good faith editor and not merely a member of a vandal website, I would suggest further expanding the article [[Soviet atheism]] and please cite reputable sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Oh the irony. Myusername is DavidspeNcer and not M. And I do use the firefox browser, 3.6.3 to be precise with greasemonkey, no script and IE View installed.
:::::And I am British so the word is spelt behaviour as far as I am concerned and seeing as we created the English language I will use that version if that is ok with you. And this is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour that I mean. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 07:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
Sid and David, the [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]] and the reactions of atheists with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] reminds me of the movies when "holy water" is sprinkled on the demon possessed.

Obsessed atheist: What's that?

Conservapedian: One of [[User:Conservative]]'s [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution|satires concerning atheism and evolution]].

Obsessed atheist: Keep it away! Ahhhhh! It burns! It burns! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Concerning the article [[Soviet atheism]], how can I improve on what is evidently perfection. Concerning your articles such as [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] most of them can not be improved on can they, hence them being locked. However I will see what I can do to improve the already good article concerning [[Soviet atheism]]. Now I will refrain from commenting again for a while as I do not wish to violate the 90/10 rule which, as Aschlafly said, is only a guidleine anyway. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::Without wanting to pronounce on the rights and wrongs of the situation under discussion, is it quite seemly for a user to weigh in and reply to complaints made to a third party about his own conduct? Monkeys and organ grinders spring to mind.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:46, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
CPalmer, because you are an atheist and an evolutionists, I humbly defer to your superior atheist intellect and your superior knowledge of monkeys. "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:16, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, why do you think that I am an atheist and an evolutionist(s)? I am just questioning whether your hasty butting in on people's overtures to Mr Schlafly can be considered polite. From a practical point of view, I would think it would also tend to prolong or inflame disputes (wasting more of your time and others'), rather than speeding their resolution. We know what your position is, so you do not need to restate it here until the discussion is furthered by a response from Aschlafly.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::CPalmer, my apologies. The was a former user with a similar username as you who had a habit of being unreasonable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:35, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Proposed blocking reform framework ==

Setting aside the current disputes about blocking and whether CP's current blockers/Sysops do or have ever done an unwarranted block or whether Sysops should undo another Sysops block, I do think that from a long term perspective a new blocking policy is warranted in order to protect editors from capricious blocks. I think we can all agree that CP certainly can't guarantee that some future blocker or Sysop won't engage in capricious blocking.

Absent of such a policy being developed using the framework I am about to suggest, I would be willing to assist in the creation of such a policy sometime in the fall of 2011.

Here is the blocking reform framework I am suggesting:

1. I suggest that any new reform or reforms be simple. CP can't predict for an discrete period of time, how heavy the blocking will be in reaction to vandals. Therefore, having some elaborate Byzantine bureaucratic scheme or blocking review at this time is probably going to be unworkable.

2. Perhaps defining what is "parody vandalism" is might be a good idea. I already offered a suggestion above.

3. I suggest that the CP community develop a blocking review board that could meet either bi-monthly or monthly or every two months (or perhaps quarterly). The CP community can offer up suggestions on whose blocks should be reviewed, but each CP editor can only offer so many candidates lest a cumbersome list be created of past blocks (CP has been around for 3 plus years. Perhaps, the blocking review board will only look at blocks for a given period). The blocking review panel could be made up of Sysops and non-Sysops and a certain amount of blocks per blocking period (which will be decided by this proposed framework} will be reviewed. For example, say the blocking review board meets one a month. It could be decided that 5 blocks per month could be reviewed by the board. Perhaps, Andy could choose to review the boards decision for any given period that the board meets. Alternatively, Andy could be a member of this board.

I am not saying my framework couldn't be adjusted as time goes by (how often they meet, how many candidates are reviewed, etc.), but I do think that my proposed blocking reform provides adequate protection, but is not overly complex or burdensome given any blocking periods blocking volume. I can't speak for others, but I personally have no problem having my blocks reviewed by such a board. I would suggest that RobS not be a part of such a blocking review board because including myself 3 Sysops that I am aware of now think he should lose his Admin rights.

I was told by a pessimist that a workable blocking reform couldn't possibly be developed in 30 minutes or less. However, I believe I just created one. :) I welcome other editors comments on my blocking reform framework lest I am being overly optimistic about the viability of my suggested reform. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:29, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:I like it. Although I would say, if Rob doesn't lose admin rights he should be allowed on the review board. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::If such a board is created, I will suggest to Andy and my fellow Admins (including the two who think he should no longer have Admin rights) that RobS not be allowed to serve on the board. Perhaps, after a considerable amount of time and evidence that RobS has changed, I would no longer oppose him being on such a board. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:02, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== 3 Sysops now agree that RobS should lose his Admin rights ==

Including myself, 3 Sysops now think RobS should lose his Admin rights. Sysop TerryH said I could list his name. I have not yet strongly lobbied for RobS to lose his Admin rights among my fellow Sysops and editors. I am giving RobS a chance to apologize for his recent behavior including among other things, the behavior I mentioned on this talk page but was whitewashed off this talk page. In addition, he shows no remorse for this behavior. If he were to change his behavior, I would not be against his Admin rights being restored. However, if RobS continues his current behavior, I am for his Admin rights to be removed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
: There are more users that have come forth believing you should lose your Admin rights. RobS has pushed for accountability for sysops and clear banning rules. It speaks volumes about you three. The one person calling for user friendly changes should lose his rights, while the man/woman/man-child/eunuch who bans the dissenters, burns evidence of dissent, and writes asinine articles on casual relationships present in any demographic, should continue unabated? No, you are a large factor in the farce that is Conservapedia.

:Conservapedia has yet to gain any large-scale positive attention. No high-profile conservatives have endorsed Conservapedia. This project can't even attract many good faith editors. Many who come in get banned at the door. Those who make it through are immediately suspected parodists. Those who toe the CP line too hard are branded as parodists and banned. Those who deviate from the CP line are vandals and banned. When a user disagrees with a sysop they are banned. If they disagree with you in particular, they are banned and the relevant talk page is burned. CP bans for ideological differences and censors dissent. As long as this behavior continues CP will never be a respectful source. RobS is pushing to change this. His proposed changes won't end the problem, but it is certainly a large step forward from the current system.

:User:Conservative, you are the one who needs to lose admin rights for your obvious abuse of power, not RobS. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::While I do not agree with all of CP's material, Concerned women of America (CWA), Human Events, Patriot Update (PU) and other conservative websites have linked to CP in a positive way (CWA and PU linked to material I had a substantial hand in if memory serves). Please try to have an informed opinion rather than merely an opinion. Second, I am not of the opinion that the number of people advocating a position is paramount. Neither did America's Founding Fathers who set up a republic and not a democracy. While I do not agree with all of Ann Coulter's political positions (the military, etc.), I am considering reading my first Ann Coulter book which focuses on how liberals love mob rule. Third, you certainly did prove your claim that anyone or anyone who disagrees with me, I ban or that I oversight all those disagree with me. I would also point out that RobS banned me and I never never banned him. It could be argued that in many ways I have shown more tolerance of him than he has afforded me. And all of this could have been avoided. All RobS had to do was stop pestering concerning inane and non-urgent matters. I wonder if RobS likes to poke sleeping dogs over and over and then complain when they bite him. And lately, RobS's poor behavior has gone significantly beyond merely pestering me which I mentioned on this talk page before it was whitewashed away (RobS recommended doing the whitewashing). As a result, I said enough is enough and sided with those who think he should lose his Admin rights. I do think he should be able to earn back his Admin if he admits his wrongdoing and behaves in a more positive manner for a period of time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I specified high profile conservatives, I said nothing of websites. Either way, [http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1350/comparisonv.png this link compares Conservapedia, the three websites you mentioned, and a comic strip.] As you can see, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is bigger than all of them. So I feel safe saying CP has no large scale positive support. Furthermore, there are no Congressmen or Senators that have endorsed CP. To my knowledge there are no candidates that have endorsed CP either.

The Founding Fathers were in favor of open discussion of problems. They did not stifle discussion by suddenly becoming busy when challenged, or by doing whatever the 18th century equivalent of locking their talk pages was. The Founding Fathers also had a large problem with men abusing their power.

That's where you come in. Let's look at your block reasons. Of course, I can only provide the diff logs for a few of these, you've burned most of the pages:

''15:45, 6 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Soxwon04 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (having a sentence with an unsupported clause followed by a question. waste someone else's time)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''04:10, 7 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked XavierC (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (By Horace, you have been banned from another wiki)'' [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/XavierC Here] is his contribs. He called you out for locking your talk page and stifling debate, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=prev&oldid=886852 here.] Yes, he called you a coward, but this is extremely common for you to do other people.

''16:49, 29 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Haggger (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (lack of machismo)'' Burned diff logs. How can we evaluate his actions?
''02:00, 2 July 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked SNg (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (नही मर्दानगी भरा व्यवहार [Masculinity is not behaving])'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''21:55, 25 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Sasayaki (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (no need to give publicity to site with many obsessive underachievers with penchant to vandalize )'' Contribs is blank, I remember this one. User answered the Question Evolution Campaign and asked own questions to you. Oh, boo-hoo he linked to RW. He disagreed with you, took up your debate, and you deleted the evidence.

''02:41, 24 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Atheistlogic1995 (Talk | contribs) wit''h an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (oxymoron)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''18:25, 1 June 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked PapaBear (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (too much talk, talk not enough serious enditing)'' User made three posts, two of them talk pages, one of which was remember to add his sig. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=873210 Offending post here.] Criticizes gossip in the BHO article.

''00:34, 28 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Jclough (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''00:49, 26 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked HarveyR (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Contribs page is blank. How can we evaluate his actions?

''22:54, 15 May 2011 Conservative (Talk | contribs) blocked Aleksyevt (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 5 years (account creation disabled) ‎ (Violated 90/10 rule against talk, talk, talk)'' Yeah, he talked a lot. You know what else he did? Ask for more sources, [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Agnosticism&diff=prev&oldid=869530 here.]

Ten examples within you're last 120 blocks: 8.3% Seven of these had blank contribs pages. How can we even analyze this? You are showing no accountability in your position of power on this wiki. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 16:30, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::JonS, you are still wrong. [[Matt Barber]] and [[William Dembski]] linked to Conservapedia in a positive light as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Articles mentioning Conservapedia|HERE]]. I personally know that a leader in a extremely well known Christian organization linked to CP's atheism and evolution articles which I largely wrote (Please do not forget the principle that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you don't know about various links does not mean they do not exist. :) ). Second, please feel free to have your liberal/evolutionists/atheists bean counter friends scour through my blocks and tabulate and examine them. I would hope they have bigger fish to fry in their lives, but I am not particularly concerned if they do. The truth is that those who whine and kvetch about me in the vast majority of cases do so because of the atheism/evolution articles I largely created at CP. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Please provide a link to this "extremely well known Christian organization." You should also acknowledge your wanton abuse of power. You can spin a quick look into your block log however you like, but that does not change you ban people for disagreeing with you, and that you burn the evidence of it. You are complained about for two reasons: 1) you abuse your sysop powers. 2) Your atheist/evolution articles are non-encyclopedic. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Ha! Demski links to Conservapedia in a "positive light"? The best that he says is that a part of the Conservapedia [[Climategate]] article "...does not sound entirely far fetched". A ringing endorsement! As for Matt Barber, no link is provided and a search of the CWA website (that you refer to in reference to him) for "Conservapedia" comes up with no results. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 18:12, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would like to note something here. Just because a user's contributions are blank does not mean that they didn't make contributions. I assume that they made inappropriate articles, or in some cases, did not follow the proper username policies. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:58, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
The userpages are left blank because Conservative has oversighted the pages they contributed to. There are two people who have names technically in violation of the rules on the list. Neither of them are said to be blocked for that reason. Given the people who have been blocked for 90/10 violations, I assume they disagreed with Conservative, he seems to block for that (Aleksyevt, PapaBear, and Sasayaki all criticized him). Even if they made inappropriate articles, Conservative should only delete them, rather than burn them, then we can be aware of these blocks, and he can be accountable, a concept he seems unfamiliar with. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 19:20, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== In an effort to end this continued and protracted debate ==

This has gone one for long enough. Both editors, RobS and Conservative, have used personal comments against each other and both have argued from opposite corners but to no avail. Why don't they '''both''' lose their sysop rights for a time - then they can prove themselves once more. I know I am just a new user but still, this is going on and on without resolution. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:51, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, in the absence of RobS pestering me again or engaging in additional very egregious behavior, I have spoken my piece on this matter. I have a feeling that RobS will either lose his Admin rights in the next 1-5 days or keep shooting himself in the foot through his poor behavior and cause his own demise or he will alter his course. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:44, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I feel, and I am sure that many other observers would agree, that you are both guilty of poor behaviour, personal attacks and actions unbecoming of someone in a position of power. I am a mere observer and carry no weight of course but it is people like me who come to conservapedia to contribute and who'll be turned off by protracted arguments, reverting and disappearing of editors comments, accusations and poorly thought out essays and ongoing in fighting. Which you are both guilty of (one in more areas than the other). [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Max, if your words carry no weight, then why offer them? Frankly, given the substance of your recent post to me I have to agree with you on this point. Now that we both agree that your words carry no weight, I won't feel bad ignoring you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::carry no weight as in no authority not because of lack of substance. All I was trying to do was be even handed, rational and end the pointed bickering. But since you have insulted me, and not for the first time, I leave you to ignore me. Frankly for someone that calls atheist quarrelsome and socially challenged you certainly seem to be showing similar traits yourself. As a Christian I avoid insults and try to be polite and fair and as I don't feel I can continue to be so I'll have to end my response here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:14, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::You end your comments by calling him a hypocrite, then claim to avoid insults?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:19, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

I think that Max is selling himself short. He has shown himself to be a calm and considered editor. His input should be valued and I would ask that he continue to participate in this discussion. SeanS, on the other hand, has shown himself incapable of staying on topic. In the section [[User_talk:Aschlafly#RobS_becoming_a_pawn_and_a_.22useful_idiot.22_of_an_atheist_website|above]] he totally derailed the discussion in an attempt to attack me. However, his input is also welcome if he can stay on topic and avoid irrelevant personal attacks.

I would like to voice my view of Max's original post in this section. I do not see why Rob should lose any rights. So far as I can see he has worked hard to improve this site and introduce reform that would only benefit the site. He has been met by a series of largely unreferenced slurs by Conservative who clearly regards his own position as under threat. If Rob were to lose rights it would send out the message that anyone who seeks to improve the site is putting their own position at risk. I do not regard that as a positive message. On the other hand I have no difficulty with Conservative losing admin rights. His history is one of abuse and failure to co-operate as has been demonstrated above and elsewhere again and again. I have no personal animosity towards him/her but he/she stands in the way of this site ever becoming a serious educational tool. That is regrettable but it is also an unavoidable conclusion. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 19:59, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
===One second...===
This is Andy Schlafly's talk page, so shouldn't he be the one to decide on this? He has not posted anything yet, so I assume he is busy. Perhaps we should wait until his decision? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 19:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Amen. Can we please show the man a little respect by giving him a chance to respond? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:11, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
::If andy wanted to reply, he could have by now. If he is going to, he will when he considers it best. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:18, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:::It's no secret that Andy has quite a number of projects on his plate, Sean. He's a busy man with a lot of demands on his time. It's entirely possible that he hasn't had a chance to look at any of this yet. Whether he has or not, though, the point remains: this is his talk page. It is a place to communicate with him, not to carry on general debates with all and sundry. In the interest of putting my money where my mouth is, I will be refraining from further posts here. I urge others to do the same. Both Conservative and RobS have said their piece; Andy will respond as he chooses and in his own time, as is his perogative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:28, 28 July 2011 (EDT)
:::: ''If he is going to, he will when he considers it best.''--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:40, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

==My two cents for Mr Schlafly==

I have been reading conservapedia for several months now, and I am pleased to say that my kids (11 and 14) also use it as their first point of call when needing encyclopedic information for homework assignments etc). I have not signed up an account as I do not feel knowledgeable (or tech-savvy) enough to contribute anything meaningful. However I fell compelled to chime in here regarding the ongoing discussion regarding the direction of this website. Cards on the table now: I am a conservative Christian and I read and encourage my kids to read this website because it promotes true American values. The main page is my "go to point" for the latest news, as the administrators here seem to have an uncanny knack of highlighting exactly the kind of stories I am interested in, I am also pleased to say that the article evolution has given my kids plenty of knowledge that is censored from them in school (and the satires have brought us all many hearty chuckles! :) ). From what little I know of this website, User:Conservative has contributed a huge amount of first-rate material and wishes to maintain the integrity of this site as a reliable conservative Christian resource, whilst User:Rob Smith (maybe with a view to enlarging the target audience?) wishes to make the site more liberal and cater to atheistic views. There are plenty of liberal atheistic sites out there, I choose not to read them. I choose to read conservapedia. Please don't change that Mr Schlafly. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 20:49, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

== Once more into the breach, dear friends... (RE blocking policy) ==

Deep breath and here we go...

These are my thoughts on the blocking policy, somewhat directed at Conservative's proposals.

1) Blocking for obvious vandals is, well, obvious. Blanking pages, filling pages with gibberish, vulgar or stupid names, etc. is just childish and such children should have a time out - a long time out. I don't believe a lot of time or effort needs to be spent establishing rules for those cases.

2) Parody, as noted elsewhere on this page, is much harder to discern. I have noticed recent blocks (and no, I'm not going to go search for them - I'm not here to point fingers) that have been questionable, in my opinion. There needs to be a set and fairly easy procedure where a blocked editor who feels their block was unfair can present his/her/its case. Chances are that most blocks are good, but in cases where there was a misunderstanding, or a personality clash, a ''disinterested'' admin needs to step in.

3) I've already suggested a board of some type, consisting of both admins and regular editors. Given the number of appeals can't be known ahead of time, setting a regular schedule might not be warranted. The board could meet when a certain number (4 or 5?) appeals have been presented and make their decision, with Andy possibly reviewing it and putting his seal of approval on it. Notifications of the board meeting should be posted prominently on the front page. A talk page could be provided with a list of editors who are appealing their block. This would allow others who are not on the board but who might have a direct interest could express their opinion. There might also be a rule with regards to a blocked editor who has been restored and their subsequent behavior.

4) As for the makeup of the board – right now I feel that should be decided later, when tempers have cooled a bit. One possible idea is to make it a rotating membership, with say, a six-month tenure. This would prevent the board duties from becoming too onerous a task for the individual members.

On a personal note, I would like to request that the editors here at CP remember that debates and discussions about articles, essays and even questionable editors should be about the actual ''edits'' that have been made, not about the editors' personalities. I realize it can be difficult, but it's not impossible.

Please don't make me get out my "mom" voice – just ask my kids. (Insert big smiley face here!)
--[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:27, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

User talk:LowKey

2011-07-29T03:13:15Z

LowKey: /* I think we would all appreciate it */

User talk:CPalmer

2010-03-18T14:06:59Z

LowKey: /* Basic rights only */ no worries

Archive: [[User talk:CPalmer/Archive2008|2008]] | [[User talk:CPalmer/Archive2009a|Jan-Apr 2009]]

==Bible quote text-popup==
{{QuoteBox|One of the best things about this site is that Bible references automatically show the text when you put the mouse over them. Example: Ezra 10:22.}}
That would be nice. Unfortunately, it doesn't. :)

(I don't know where to put this, so I'm putting it at the top)
- [[User:EvanW]] 31 Oct 09

: Ah, yes. Well, it used to, and it may do again in the future. I assume it's a temporary bug.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:27, 12 November 2009 (EST)

== "Decreasingly new" ==

That made me laugh. I'm going to have to steal it now. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 11:51, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks Jinx - steal away! It's funny, but I've been editing here for months and somehow I do still feel like the new guy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:59, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

==Hahaha==
This wiki makes me laugh. Much like Fox News, it claims to be unbiased but instead portrays only one side of the situation. Can you possibly say the [[Barack Obama]] article is unbiased? Ahahahah. This wiki was supposedly created because Wikipedia was too biased in liberals' favor, but the funny thing is, this wiki is ten times more biased than Wikipedia could ever hope to be. [[User:Scarecrowk|Scarecrowk]]
:It's all very well to laugh, but perhaps you could work to improve what you think is lacking instead? New contributors are always welcome here.
:Also note that Conservapedia doesn't claim to be unbiased - it openly has a declared US conservative point of view. Otherwise it would have to be called Unbiasedopaedia!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:49, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

::Right. Wikipedia says "we're neutral" and then they insert and defend bias. We basically say up front "we're biased!" which is not true bias, but declared POV. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:53, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

==images==
File:NoSmoking.png, File:Ashtray.jpg. Here are the names of the images you requested about smoking. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 23:08, 29 May 2009 (EDT)
:Thanks Addison!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 14:42, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for your edits this morning!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:59, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

: No problem - thanks for noticing!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:21, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

==Aditional Thanks==

Thanks for helping clean my Metallicity article, I didn't realize I left that original extra paragraph in there, was using it to organize thoughts -- [[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:13, 18 June 2009 [EDT]

==Ok Serious now==
If you agree to forget the past few minutes I will be constructive. My interests include the Darwinian influence on morality and black holes.{{unsigned|Wheelchairman}}
:I'm not an administrator, so don't have authority to forget/not forget anything! If you'd like to improve pages on, say, [[sin]] or [[black hole]]s I'm sure that would be welcome.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:06, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

== The Vandal ==

How can we get rid of the 'Wheelchairman' vandal? Could we email a sysop? [[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 10:01, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

: You can try posting on sysops' talk pages or even emailing them, but to be honest if any were online they would probably notice the activity in "Recent changes" anyway. That leaves us with the standard tactics of reverting, ignoring or appealing to their better nature.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:06, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

::Gosh, I thought I appeared to be "online". I'd better have Webmaster check it! Thank goodness Joaquin spotted it. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:11, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

:::I didn't see you in 'recent changes'. For future reference, do you get an alert automatically if someone posts on your page?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:44, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

::::When your User talk page has a new edit, there should be a notice that appears in the upper right-hand corner of your screen view. That's what I see. Perhaps it is a profile setting. Alternatively, you can always click on "Watch this page" for highlighting of an edit to any page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:02, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::I see a orange banner that says I have a "new" message, and links that either take me to the talk page, and another that takes me directly to the history "diff". That is how I manage to watch CP and still reduce the backlog TiVo has on it! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:10, 20 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::I get the 'new messages' banner as well - I was just wondering if the admins got alerted even if they weren't actually looking at Conservapedia at the time. We could have done with a 'bat signal' when that joker was about yesterday.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:29, 20 June 2009 (EDT)

== Vice President of the United States ==

Thinking about this problematic title, shouldn't the link <noinclude>[[Vice President]]</noinclude> go to an article and NOT a person, that changes or possibly does, every election cycle? --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:47, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

:That would make sense, I think. Probably better for an American to write it though - we Brits don't have a vice-Queen!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:59, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

== Longest Running ==
User:FOIA has you beat by several months. You are the longest running Brit at CP. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:10, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
:Ah, I suspected there would be somebody. Thanks for the heads-up, as I believe Americans often say.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:42, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

==Grammar==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative&curid=2849&diff=696646&oldid=696645&rcid=762970 this correction]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:32, 28 August 2009 (EDT)
:You're welcome, although I did put the ungrammatical sentence in in the first place!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:45, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for your edit to [[conservative]]! And thanks for your other superb work. I've learned from your contributions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

:Quite welcome. As a Brit, I've been looking for a succinct definition to sum up US conservatism and that seemed to fit the bill.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:37, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

::Britain seems to be swinging back to conservatism now. I'm optimistic as entries like [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] indicate. Regardless, thanks again for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

:::It's certainly likely that the Conservative Party will win the next election, though only some of their positions would be considered conservative by American standards. They do have some ideas on deregulating state education that you might find interesting.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:39, 28 August 2009 (EDT)

==Thanks again==

I was editing [[dog meat]] at Wikipedia, and I absentmindedly inserted text for their article into our [[Windows bugs]] article. Thanks for that prompt correction; you saved me some embarassment; I looked like a graffiti artist for a moment there ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:31, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
:Don't mention it! It did look weird, but I knew there would be an explanation.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:01, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

== [[Conservative Bible Project]] ==

Hi, there! In case you didn't know it, I've lately taken command of this Project, under the direct authority of Mr. [[User:Aschlafly|Schlafly]]. That generally means that if you're going to participate in it, I need to know your qualifications. Here are mine: I can read ancient Greek almost as fast as I can read modern English; the only limitation I have is in vocabulary, and I have a Strong's and a Newman's Concise Dictionary.

If you would like to take on translating a whole book of the Bible, let me know. But all I ask is that people finish what they begin.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:59, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

:Hello Terry. I have just been looking to translate one verse each day, as much as an aid to my own understanding as a contribution to the project. Is this kind of low-key activity welcome, or should contributors make a more substantial commitment before getting involved at all?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:40, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

== Longest basic rights ==

* 01:26, 24 March 2008 [[User:JLauttamus|JLauttamus]] (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎
So hah! -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:58, 10 November 2009 (EST)
By the way, who's the first longest-running? -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:59, 10 November 2009 (EST)

:Congratulations! I'll amend the page accordingly. The other one is FOIA - I think it may be a close-run thing between the two of you.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:05, 12 November 2009 (EST)

::Yeah, he's got me by about 15 days. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:08, 12 November 2009 (EST)

:::I haven't been around quite that long, but I have been around since early May 2008. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:45, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Ah - thanks for letting me know. You've just got yourself a spot on the list.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:28, 2 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Just to add 15:19, 20 September 2007 Able806 (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 08:32, 2 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Super - it seems there's quite a few more than I thought!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:33, 2 December 2009 (EST)

== Basic rights only ==

12:14, 23 January 2008 LowKey (Talk | contribs) New user account ‎ {{unsigned|LowKey}}

:Bradley, is there some problem? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:58, 17 March 2010 (EDT)

::Nope, just answering the call. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 10:06, 18 March 2010 (EDT) (signed it this time)

User talk:CPalmer

2010-03-18T02:10:55Z

LowKey: /* Basic rights only */ new section

User talk:LowKey

2010-02-11T02:56:38Z

LowKey: blanked

Climategate

2010-02-03T04:46:06Z

LowKey: /* Other Countries Take Notice */ not actually over Climategate, but the ETS itself

[[File:Gorelying.jpg|right|300px|thumb|[[Al Gore]] on CNN's ''American Morning'', December 9, 2009, in which he stated that snow is melting from the polar icecaps and glaciers at a rapid rate, and that the "global warming deniers" manipulated the emails from CRU out of context. 
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtdoPeYdNRA Al Gore Weighs In On Climate Gate], ''CNN'' interview pt.1 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3IRdkPkatE Al Gore Weighs In On Climate Gate], ''CNN'' interview pt.2]]
[[File:UnitedStatesSnow slideshow 604x500.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Image from NASA showing a record snowfall in the western United States on December 9, 2009, contradicting Gore's claim. (NASA)]]
The '''Climategate''' scandal erupted when emails were exposed, showing [[scientific fraud|fraud]] and [[manipulation]]s by scientists concerning the [[Global Warming Theory]], which asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures and thus [[climate change]]. On November 19, 2009, climate [[science]] was severely shaken by the release of a collection of [[e-mail]] messages, together with a collection of data and data processing programs, that were hacked or revealed by a whistle blower from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the [[United Kingdom|UK]], one of the key centers of [[global warming]] research.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/ Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released], ''Watts Up With That?'', November 19, 2009.</ref> The Climategate emails and climate data have been the subject of intense debate, calling to question assumptions on [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic (man-made) global warming]]; evidence revealed told the truth about man-made [[global warming]]: it's a [[fraud]].<ref>James Delingpole. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018246/climategate-how-the-greatest-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation-got-its-name/ Climategate: how the 'greatest scientific scandal of our generation' got its name], Telegraph.co.uk, November 29, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125109.guest.html Universe of Lies: Big Warmers Try to Whitewash ClimateGate Fraud], RushLimbaugh.com, November 30, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered], ''American Thinker'', November 25, 2009.</ref><ref>Steve McIntyre. [http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem], climateaudit.org, September 27, 2009.</ref><ref>Andrew Orlowski. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/one-of-the-frauds-behind-the-cru One Of The Scandals In The CRU Emails], ''Sweetness & Light'', September 29, 2009.</ref> The scandal that the suffix –'''gate''' implies is the state of climate science over the past decade revealed by a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists released following the leaked data from the Climatic Research Unit.<ref name=3things>Iain Murray. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/ Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref> Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific [[hoax]] in world history as the worst [[scandal]] of this [[generation]].<ref>Christopher Booker. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation], Telegraph.co.uk, November 28, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/videos/?uri=channels/338017/667734 The Biggest Scam In History (Video)], ''The Glenn Beck Program'', December 01, 2009.</ref>

Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on [[climate science]], in a profoundly bizarre situation the [[Mainstream media]] attempted to bury the Climategate story.<ref name=accuracyinmedia>Allie Duzett. [http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-ignore-climate-science-scandal/ Media Ignore Climate Science Scandal], [[Accuracy In Media]], November 23, 2009.</ref> At the same time, liberal [[Wikipedia]] quickly [[Censorship|censored]] Climategate and referred to it as an illegal "incident," as the work of computer hackers stealing data — despite [[Freedom of Information Act]] requests. Contrary to the [[Liberal media|liberal media's]] attempt to hide the scandal, Climategate has received news coverage from notable sources in the [[media]]. Commentators and others in the media have covered news on Climategate, many of which have outlined important takeaways about specific information valuable to the public.<ref>Larrey Anderson. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/revenge_of_the_computer_nerds_1.html Revenge of the Computer Nerds], ''American Thinker'', December 09, 2009.</ref>

==Climategate Scandal==
[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]
Climate science was troubled after news reports of the Climategate scandal went public, after the release of a thousand email messages and a collection of data and data processing programs from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.<ref>Christopher C. Horner. [http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/media-missing-the-plot-on-climate-gate-its-the-fraud-stupid/#more-35302 Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!], BigGovernment.com, November 23, 2009.</ref> The trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool was called into question. On November 29, with the publication of a report by ''The Sunday Times'' of [[London]], it was reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref> The admittance occurred following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

[[Michelle Malkin]] reported on the University of East Anglia, the research institution at the center of Climategate. She detailed one of the many problems that will occur as a result of such data loss, "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/30/document-dump-a-palooza/ Document-dump-a-palooza], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 30, 2009.</ref> The Climategate scandal is a worldwide corruption of climate science and is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. It was discovered that the reported [[warming trend]] in [[New Zealand]] over the past 156 years (from 1853 to 2008) was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature data.<ref>P.J. Gladnick. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/26/climategate-scandal-spreads-new-zealand-msm-continues-ostrich-act Climategate Scandal Spreads to New Zealand as MSM Continues Ostrich Act], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 26, 2009.</ref> The centerpiece of New Zealand's ''National Institute of Water & Atmospheric'' research temperature claims have been proven false.<ref>The revelations were published on November 25, 2009, from ''The Climate Science Coalition'' of NZ: [http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf PDF] A paper collated by Richard Treadgold, of the ''Climate Conversation Group'', from a combined research project undertaken by members of the ''Climate Conversation Group'' and the [[New Zealand]] ''Climate Science Coalition''.</ref> This data contributes to global temperature statistics and the [[IPCC]] reports. It is partly why the [[Obama administration]] is insisting on participating in the climate conference in [[Copenhagen]].

The CRU scientists deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. This is [[criminal]] [[fraud]] under [[English]] [[Law]]. Because of the worldwide fraud revealed from Climategate and the burden it has caused to the global scientific community, on December 01, 2009, [[Phil Jones]], the director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the [[United Kingdom]] stepped down pending the investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578486,00.html Facing Scandal, Head of Climate Research Lab to Temporarily Step Down], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref> On January 28, 2010, from the ''London Times'', inquiry over the Climategate emails found Phil Jones broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.<ref>Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Jonathan Leake. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data], ''The London Times'', January 28, 2010.</ref> [[Michael Mann]] is still under investigation by [[Pennsylvania State University]].

From the [[United States]] Climategate, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) had their attorneys file three Notices of Intent to File Suit against [[NASA]]. Chris Horner, representing CEI, said the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act for the past three years.<ref>Tony Pann. [http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m11d25-Climategate-CEI-to-sue-NASA-Goddard-for-Climate-Change-fraud Climategate: CEI to sue NASA Goddard for Climate Change fraud], ''Baltimore Weather Examiner'', November 25, 2009.</ref> The Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers worldwide, including NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.<ref>Joseph D'Aleo. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-noaa-and-nasa-complicit-in-data-manipulation/ Climategate: NOAA and NASA Complicit in Data Manipulation], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', January 29, 2010.</ref> NASA's two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, "systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations."<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518890 A U.S. ClimateGate?], Investors.com, January 22, 2010.</ref>

:* The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today.

:* The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.

Stations in places such as the [[Andes]] and [[Bolivia]] have virtually vanished, and temperatures from these areas are now "determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon." Average temperatures were extrapolated from readings in other cities across the world. This selectivity of locations made NASA's data and [[climate change]] conclusions skewed to to advance the global warming agenda rather than create data based on scientific facts. The Climategate emails showed that climatologists had conspired to suppress research challenged the global warming orthodoxy.<ref>NP Editor. [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/29/steve-janke-more-unsettling-science-in-the-global-warming-camp.aspx Steve Janke: More unsettling science in the global warming camp], ''[[National Post]]'', January 29, 2010.</ref>

The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a [[criminal]] intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a [[cap and trade]] scheme as part of a Global Warming movement. Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a [[FOIA]] request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable [[university]].

The ''CBC’s'' Rex Murphy discussed Climategate in an editorial on December 03, 2009.
{{cquote|...Climate science has shown to be, in part, a sub-branch of climate politics. It is a situation intolerable even to serious minds who are on side with Global warming. Such as Clive Crook, who wrote in Atlantic magazine about this scandal as follows: 'the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'. Climate science needs its own reset button. And Climategate should be seen not primarily as a set-back, but as an opportunity to cleanse scientific method, to take science away from politics, good causes and alarmists. And vest climate science in bodies of guaranteed neutrality, openness, real in vigorous debate; and away from the lobbyists, the advocates, the Gore's, and professional environmentalists of all kinds. Too many of the current leadership on Global warming are more players than observers, gatekeepers and not investigators, angry partisans of some global engineering, rather than the humble servants of the facts of the case. Read the e-mails, you'll never think of climate science quite the same way again.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/you-wouldnt-accept-that-at-a-grade-9-science-fair-cbc-finds-a-moment-of-clarity/ “You wouldn’t accept that at a grade 9 science fair…” – CBC finds a moment of clarity on Climategate], ''WUWT'', December 03, 2009.</ref><ref>Clive Crook, senior editor of ''The Atlantic Monthly'' and former deputy editor of ''The Economist'': "The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And this scandal is not at the margins of the politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process. It goes to the core of that process." [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/03/climategate-fallout.aspx Climategate fallout], ''[[National Post]]'', December 03, 2009.</ref>}}

Iain Murray at ''Pajamas Media'' pointed out three takeaways that people must know about Climategate.<ref name=3things/>
<blockquote>
#First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are [[paleoclimatologist|paleoclimatologists]], who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in [[temperature|temperatures]] well above historical variation in recent decades.
#Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific [[peer review]] process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, [[Tom Wigley]] of the University Corporation for [[Atmosphere|Atmospheric]] Research in Boulder, [[Colorado]], complained that paleoclimatologist [[Hans von Storch]] was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” ([http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt 1051190249]) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).
#Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the [[Freedom of Information Act|Freedom of Information]] process of the United Kingdom.<ref>[http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=893&filename=1212073451.txt Alleged CRU Email - 1212073451.txt]</ref><ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=490&keyword= Email - Re: For your eyes only]</ref>
</blockquote>

===Data Manipulation===
[[Image:Orange sun large.jpg|thumb|right|300px|On December 10, 2009, [[Roy W. Spencer]], Ph. D., showed the potential effects of sunspot activity on climate, detailing [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/geomagnetic-forcing-of-earth%E2%80%99s-cloud-cover-during-2000-2008/ solar geomagnetic to earth climate connections]. On the subject of solar activity affecting climate variations, the geomagnetic modulation of cloudiness has about 10 times the effect on the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth as does the solar cycle’s direct modulation of the sun’s output. It also rivals the level of forcing due to [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic]] [[Greenhouse effect|greenhouse gas emissions]], but with way more variability from year to year and decade to decade. (Can anyone say, “natural climate variability”?)]]
The primary issue from Climategate is the data manipulation. [[Science]] requires data, and inadequacy of the climate record was always a problem even before Climategate became known to the public. Dr. [[Tim Ball]] wrote in the ''Canada Free Press'' on the primary issue from Climategate:
{{cquote|Climatology recognizes three distinct periods: The very recent instrumental period; the historical period to 3000 years, and the geologic [and] biologic for the rest. The [Climatic Research Unit scientists] manipulated data in all three but the first is critical because it is the source of material for the computer models, the vehicle of their deception. [...] They claim [the emails] are taken out of context. In context the fullness of their criminality is exposed. They claim there’s nothing of consequence in the emails, but [the emails show] a litany of [[manipulation]] of, the data, the process, publications, [[peer review]], and [[personal attack]]s.<ref name=datamanipulation>Dr. Tim Ball. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17916 The New Big Lie: Climategate Emails Are Not Significant], ''Canada Free Press'', December 14, 2009.</ref>}}

Climategate shows strong evidence of fraud, and may show smoking-gun proof of a cover-up by CRU scientists to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails], FOXNews.com, November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html The Evidence of Climate Fraud], ''American Thinker'', November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 25, 2009.</ref> From ''Cube Antics'', by Robert Greiner, who is a scientist and engineer "with an agnostic stand on global warming," he offered a statement about the research methods of the CRU scientists, attempting to show proof that they had the means and intent to falsify data. Greiner pointed out that the Climategate emails alone do not provide sufficient proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. What the Climategate emails do show is that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money; moreover, within the collection of data and data processing programs revealed from Climategate, code from the CRU shows proof that valid [[temperature station]] readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref name=codeproof>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/ The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle], ''Cube Antics'', December 03, 2009.</ref> Analysis of the CRU's code revealed the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. Greiner reiterated his findings:
{{cquote|First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce. This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing. If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.<ref name=codeproof/>}}

On December 05, 2009, Robert Greiner pointed out the four most frequent concerns dealing with the CRU’s source code uncovered from Climategate:<ref name=codepart2>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/climategate-code-analysis-part-2/ Climategate Code Analysis Part 2], ''Cube Antics'', December 05, 2009.</ref>
<blockquote>
:1. The source code that actually printed the graph was commented out and, therefore, is not valid proof.
:2. No proof exists that shows this code was used in publishing results.
:3. Interpolation is a normal part of dealing with large data sets, this is no different.
:4. You need the raw climate data to prove that foul play occurred.
</blockquote>
After further analysis, his first concern pointed out that the source code that printed the graph was commented out and thus is not valid proof. On the second concern, Greiner clarified that, "Enough proof exists that the CRU had both the means and intent to intentionally falsify data. This means that all of their research results cannot be trusted until they are verified. Period." The third concern as pointed out by Greiner is not about the fact that the CRU researchers used [[Interpolated|interpolation]]; the issue is the weight of the "valadj" array with respect to the raw data. Greiner said, "valadj simply introduces '''too large''' of an influence to the original data to do anything productive with it." Fourthly, Greiner said that raw climate data is needed to prove that foul play has actually occurred. He said, "It simply doesn’t matter if the raw climate data are correct or not to demonstrate the extreme bias the valadj array forces on the raw data. So, the raw data could actually be temperature data or corporate sales figures, the result is the same; a severe manipulation of data."<ref name=codepart2/>

====Integrity of Data====
Climategate has jeopardized the [[integrity]] of worldwide scientific data on [[climate change]].<ref name=dataintegrity>Willis Eschenbach. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero], ''Watts Up With That?'', December 08, 2009.</ref><ref>On December 11, 2009, the ''Economist'' published an unsigned article attacking the work by Willis Eschenbach. This open letter is Eschenbach's reply. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ Willis: Reply to the Economist], ''WUWT'', December 12, 2009.</ref> There are two objections that question the validity of temperature data from the IPCC report released in 2007, one of which Climategate does not affect. The earth has generally been warming since the [[Little Ice Age]], around [[AD]] 1650 (Akasofu, 2007).<ref>Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”? (2007) A possible cause of global warming [http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf PDF] by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, ''International Arctic Research Center'', University of Alaska Fairbanks.</ref> The second objection has questioned the integrity of the data, as pointed out from ''Watts Up With That?'' in an article written by Willis Eschenbach. There are three main global temperature datasets, as clarified by Eschenbach.

:* One is at the [[CRU]], Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.
:* Another one is at NOAA ([[GHCN]]), the Global Historical Climate Network.
:* The final one is at NASA ([[GISS]]), the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The three groups take raw data, and they "homogenize" it to remove temperature discrepancy's that occur when a station is moved to a warmer or colder location. One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU basically uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) dataset for its raw data.<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=GHCN&topEmails=&submit=Search Search - GHCN], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> This raw data is downloaded from GISS, but GISS uses the GHCN raw data as the starting point for their analysis. Both GISS and CRU get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. But the [[IPCC]] uses the "adjusted" data; GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls "inhomogeneities."

At [[Darwin]] Airport there are five separate individual station records that are combined to make up the final Darwin record.<ref>[http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=darwin GISS Surface Temperature Analysis], data.giss.nasa.gov.</ref> In 1941, a station was moved to Darwin Airport. The GHCN then removed the inhomogeneities to adjust the data. Of the five raw datasets at Darwin, the GHCN discarded two. The three remaining records were first homogenized and then averaged to give the "GHCN Adjusted" temperature record for Darwin. Before the GHCN homogenized the data, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century. After the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century.

Willis Eschenbach looked into it further and started with the earliest record, "Station Zero" at Darwin. The five different station records (raw data) covering Darwin from 1941 on all agreed almost exactly. What Eschenbach found was that there is "indisputable evidence that the 'homogenized' data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming." The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station shows that at least one part of the data is bad at Darwin Zero.
{{cquote|They’ve just added a huge, artificial, totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! A six degree per century trend? What’s up with that? [...] The GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them. That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it 'hides the decline.' [...] Care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? They only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941. Every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling.<ref name=dataintegrity/>}}
Separate from GHCN, GISS takes the raw temperature data and does their own adjustments. However, GISS verified that their adjusted, homogenized data is the same as GHCN.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/ GISS “raw” station data – before and after], ''WUWT'', December 11, 2009.</ref> The data is questionable because the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) manipulates the data prior to its use by others; this process was described as homogenizing. The CRU apparently "lost" their data. Scientists at the CRU, who produce global annual average temperatures, select stations that create the results they want, then adjust the data again for fraudulent purposes.<ref name=datamanipulation/> Climategate revealed a fact that, until all of the station "adjustments" are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS cannot be trusted if using homogenized numbers.

[[Image:GlobalTemps June2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|'''8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps.''' Dr. Roy Spencer in June 2009 announced on his [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/june-2009-global-temperature-anomaly-update-000-deg-c/ blog] that June's anomaly globally using the Aqua satellite dropped to 0.001C. '''This continued downtrend started after 2001''', and is another indicator [[Global Warming]] alarmists have certainly embodied a hoax. It was also reported: '''Sea Level Rise; A Major Non-existent Threat Exploited by Alarmists:''' Truth about sea level is a major casualty of the war to implement whatever is deemed necessary to implement legislation to increase [[Big government|Big Government]] power and control, including [[Socialist]] [[Income redistribution]] ideologies. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12629 ''Canada Free Press''] - http://www.climatedepot.com/]]

====Hockey Stick Graph====
In one Climategate [[e-mail]] dated November 1999, CRU chief P.D. Jones wrote to [[Michael Mann]], Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes:
{{cquote|I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to '''hide the decline'''.<ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html UN Climate Reports: They Lie], ''American Thinker'', October 05, 2009.</ref>}}

Michael Mann's [[hockey stick graph]] hid the real declining temperatures and instead showed a [[warming trend]].<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/ Historical video perspective: global warming in the context of scale], ''WUWT'', December 12, 2009.</ref> Mann's graph portrayed temperatures as steadily declining since [[Medieval Warm Period|medieval times]] and then sharply rising in the last century and a half. Notably, his reconstruction fueled claims that 1998 and following years had the highest temperatures in 1,000 years. Once it became publicly known that man-made global warming is a hoax, as a direct result of the e-mail discussing a "trick" for adding data to each temperature series for the last 20 years, Climategate motivated the making of a video called, "Hide The Decline."<ref>Derek Erwin. [http://derekerwin.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate-video-hide-decline.html Video of the Year: 'Hide The Decline' - Climategate], ''A 1-In-100 Blogger'', November 27, 2009.</ref>

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

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


====Videos on Hockey Stick Graph====

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data], the “unprecedented” temperatures of the present day when put in perspective of geologic time.
* ''Hi-Definition'': [http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif Historical perspective slide show (.GIF)], “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale.
* ''Low-res'': [http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif Historical perspective slide show (.GIF)], “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale.


===Climategate Fraud===
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rain forest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland. However, Climategate forced the United Nations climate watchdog to admit intentionally publishing false claims; the IPCC claims about melting ice in the [[Alps]], the [[Andes]], and in [[Africa]] did not come from [[peer review|peer reviewed]] scientific literature—but from ''Climbing Magazine'', and from a student dissertation—written by a [[climate change]] [[activist]] who was studying for a degree in [[Geography]].<ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/35784/ Exclusive: Yet another climategate?], ''The Glenn Beck Program'', February 1, 2010.</ref> The IPCC claims that global warming might wipe out 40% of the [[Amazon River|Amazon]] [[Forest|rainforest]] was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.<ref>Jonathan Leake. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim], ''[[The Sunday Times]]'', January 31, 2010.</ref><ref>Richard Gray. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article], Telegraph.co.uk, January 30, 2010.</ref>

In another crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement, [[Greenpeace]] leader [[Gerd Leipold]] admitted that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that [[Arctic]] [[ice]] would disappear completely by 2030.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/greenpeace-leader-admits-organization-put-out-fake-global-warming-data/ Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data], ''Info Wars'', August 20, 2009.</ref> Despite the admission that a panel report warning [[Himalayan]] [[glaciers]] could be gone by 2035 was hundreds of years off, and regardless of the fraud, deceit and lies the Greenpeace organization spread about global warming, Gerd Leipold said he would not resign.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583711,00.html U.N. Climate Change Expert Cites More Errors in Report], ''[[Fox News]]'', January 25, 2010.</ref>

==Climategate Emails==
The Climategate emails discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure dissenting papers had no access to publication. The Climategate emails show that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money, deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. The collection of data and data processing programs, code from the CRU shows proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref>Steve Gilbert. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/some-summaries-of-the-cru-emails A Few Summaries Of Some ‘CRU Emails’], ''Sweetness & Light'', November 22, 2009.</ref>

===Themes===
On the climate science environmental agenda and the scandal that Climategate revealed all together, [[Glenn Beck]] commented on the [[e-mail|emails]]:
{{cquote|[The scientists] were asking each other to delete messages to avoid [[Freedom of Information Act]] requests. That doesn't sound legal. Scientists are working together to try and change the definition of [[peer review]] journals so that anybody who said global warming wasn't real couldn't get their papers published. ... [And then with] these thousands of E-mails ... Shouldn't this be - oh, I don't know - everywhere now? All of them are, to varying degrees, important. But how much could any of those actually cost you? This scandal will literally cost you trillions of dollars. That's what's at stake worldwide. It's on how we deal with the climate.<ref name=nbstaff>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/11/24/glenn-beck-cites-newsbusters-bash-tvs-climategate-boycott Glenn Beck Cites NewsBusters to Bash TV's ClimateGate Boycott], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>}}

According to [[Rush Limbaugh]], another theme of the e-mails that have been released is how people at the Climatic Research Unit were constantly trying to "shake down" the oil companies (ie. Exxon, Shell) for [[money]] and for partnerships.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/ Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support], ''WUWT'', December 04, 2009.</ref> On this reoccurring theme, Limbaugh mentioned the following:
{{cquote|They talk about it openly, how they're constantly trying to shake down the oil companies. The only thing man-made about global warming is the theory behind it. What you are going to do with people who are even willing to lie about the weather?<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125111.guest.html It's Not a Consensus, It's a Cabal], RushLimbaugh.com, November 30, 2009.</ref>}}

===IPCC and the CRU's 'Trick'===
Further analysis of the word "trick" and how it was used in the Climategate emails from the CRU provided interesting feedback. It showed that CRU did indeed truncate tree ring data, so that the real decline in global temperature is not shown in the [[IPCC]] report, as referenced by Steve McIntyre.<ref>Steve McIntyre. [http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483 IPCC and the “Trick”], climateaudit.org, December 10, 2009.</ref> McIntyre brought this to attention as an expert reviewer in the IPCC process in 2005, but at the time of inquiry his dissent was stifled and the discussion was never presented to external peer reviewers.

The explanation for the use of the word "trick" came quickly from CRU director Dr. Phil Jones in his official announcement on November 23rd. He claimed, "The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward." If Dr. Jones used such colloquialisms regularly, it stood to reason that further analysis should find a number of similar instances of the word "trick" in the CRU Climategate emails over the decade that the emails spanned. A file search program with a simple mission to scan the email folders for all file content with instances of the word "trick" used by itself (excluding other words like "Patrick" that would have "trick" embedded in it) returned eight files with that condition:<ref name=trickcount>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/counting-cru-tricks/ Counting CRU “tricks”], ''WUWT'', December 10, 2009.</ref>


* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=12&filename=843161829.txt 0843161829.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt 0942777075.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=365&filename=1065206624.txt 1065206624.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=366&filename=1065636937.txt 1065636937.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=454&filename=1103236623.txt 1103236623.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=796&filename=1179416790.txt 1179416790.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=812&filename=1188508827.txt 1188508827.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=852&filename=1200162026.txt 1200162026.txt]


After a second file search was executed to double check how many of the Climategate emails contained some permutation of the letters "t r i c k," it revealed 29 emails out of the 1079 emails in the [http://junkscience.com/FOIA/ FOIA2009.zip] file. Only one instance was found where Dr. Jones used the word "trick" in reference to a procedure on data. There are other uses and variations of the word "trick" in other emails, but only one instance attributed to Jones where he refers to this data issue. As Dr. Jones put it: The word ‘trick’ was used in the lone instance colloquially as in a clever thing to do (eg. "that’ll do the trick"). But it was questioned that one would expect to see it in general use by Dr. Jones in other emails if it was indeed a colloquialism. In the thousand plus Climategate emails, there’s no other use of the word "trick" by Dr. Jones related to data truncation or otherwise, though there are other colloquial uses of the word by other authors.<ref name=trickcount/>

===Wikipedia===
Lawrence Solomon from the ''[[National Post]]'' discovered from the Climategate emails how a small band of [[climatologists]] plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the [[Medieval Warm Period]].<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=Wikipedia&submit=Search Search - Wikipedia], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> The Climategate emails revealed the enlistment of [[Wikipedia]] in their attempt at rewriting history. It was revealed how Wikipedia’s "green doctor," a U.K. scientist and [[Green Party]] activist, rewrote 5,428 climate articles. The recruited [[Wikipedia]] administrator, William Connolley, literally rewrote history and then abused his administrative privileges to stifle criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/ Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes Wikipedia climate information], ''WUWT'', December 19, 2009.</ref> Lawrence Solomon wrote on this revelation and on Wikipedia's loss of [[integrity]] as a source of factual information, and on the clear abuse of power from administrative authorities within Wikipedia:
{{cquote|Starting in February 2003, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.<ref>Lawrence Solomon. [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor], ''[[National Post]]'', December 19, 2009.</ref>}}

==Global Reactions to Climategate==
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="350" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: lightblue no-repeat scroll top left;"|Climategate Scandal Spreads Worldwide
|-
! Nation!!Involvement in corruption of climate science
|- valign="center"
| [[File:50 star flag.png|50px]]||[[Pennsylvania State University|Penn State]] is investigating [[Michael Mann]] for his role in Climategate. [[Barack Obama]] is "doubling down" on his commitment to combat fake Global warming; the [[Obama administration]] dumps [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/12/17/2009-12-17_us_will_contribute_to_100b_climate_fund_for_developing_countries_hillary_clinton.html more U.S. taxpayer dollars] into a global $100 billion [[European Union]] climate change fund.
|-
| [[File:Flag of Australia.png|50px]]||Liberal Party members within [[Australia|Australia’s]] parliament resigned their portfolios rather than voted for a cap and trade scheme based on flawed science.
|-
| [[File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.png|50px]]||[[Saudi Arabia]] called for an independent investigation into Climategate.
|-
| [[File:Flag of New Zealand.png|50px]]||The centerpiece of New Zealand's ''National Institute of Water & Atmospheric'' research temperature claims are proven false: [http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf PDF]
|-
| [[File:Union jack.jpg|50px]]||The [[UK|UK's]] CRU director Phil Jones stepped down.
|-
| [[File:Flag of Russia.png|50px]]||[[Russia]] admitted the [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html CRU emails were uploaded on a Siberian Internet server] and denied involved, but [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/ "confirmed" that UK climate scientists manipulated data] to exaggerate global warming.
|-
|}

===Copenhagen===
[[Sarah Palin]] called for President Obama to skip [[Copenhagen]], the climate summit in [[Denmark]], because of the information Climategate exposed. She commented on [[Facebook]] that the president should reconsider his trip until the e-mails can be investigated, "Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the [[United States]] government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices."<ref name=obamacopenhagen>Wendell Goler. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/05/obama-s-shift-copenhagen-visit-defies-climate-gate-controversy/ Obama Ignores 'Climate-Gate' in Revising Copenhagen Plans], FOXNews.com, December 5, 2009.</ref> Instead, the [[The White House|White House]] attempted to downplay the controversial leaked e-mails of climate scientists. [[President Obama]] announced that he was "doubling down" on his commitment to the worldwide environmental agenda, pushing forward with a [[cap and trade]] scheme that is based on flawed science, and hoping to secure a "meaningful" agreement. The President made it clear that he will invest more energy and taxpayer dollars to help advance the global warming hoax.

Originally, the [[President of the United States of America|President]] was supposed to attend the U.N. Climate Conference in Copenhagen for the beginning of the conference, "bless the occasion and leave," said Roger Simon of ''[[Pajamas Media]]''. After Climategate became known, ''Pajamas Media'' reported that President Obama, "[S]witched his itinerary to be there at the end of the two weeks in order to give his blessing and impetus to the decision itself."<ref>Roger L. Simon. [http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/12/06/climategate-why-obama-switched-his-copenhagen-itinerary/ Climategate: Why Obama switched his Copenhagen itinerary], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', December 06, 2009.</ref>

===Obama Administration===
In a case of see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, the Obama administration showed commitment to [[climate change]] legislation and at the same time dismissive of Climategate. Though evidence revealed from the e-mail messages from the CRU shows that researchers manipulated data, suppressed data and stifled dissent, [[John Holdren]], Obama's science czar who is directly involved in the Climategate scandal stated boldly, "The science is proper and this is about a small fraction of research on the issue."<ref>Dr. Tim Ball, Judi McLeod. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183 Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal], ''Canada Free Press'', November 24, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/24/science-czar-john-holdren-and-climategate-perfect-together/ Science czar John Holdren and ClimateGate: Perfect together], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 24, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/02/white-house-science-officials-defend-climate-change-data-amid-e-mail-scandal/ White House Science Officials Defend Climate Change Data Amid E-Mail Scandal], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref> The [[reality]] is that this small 'fraction of research' — the theory which is the foundation of [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic global warming]] — the data used by CRU scientists, it is proven fraudulent. The [[theory]] which used to hold human beings responsible: it is nothing more than a Global warming scam, according to Jim O'Neill from the ''Canada Free Press''.<ref>Jim O'Neill. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17361 Attention Lawyers! Make Millions Off Of Climategate Crooks!], ''Canada Free Press'', November 30, 2009 .</ref> The scientists at the CRU, from the evidence found in their e-mails and documents, show a criminal intent to defraud the public of massive amounts of money, and at the same time advance an ideological [[Leftist]] agenda.<ref>Christopher Monckton. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/ Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', November 23, 2009.</ref>

===U.S. Congressional Comments===
When House [[Republicans]] asked for a hearing or investigation into the Climategate scandal, independent from the Penn State University which is looking into the Climategate emails by its own researcher, [[Michael Mann]], calls for further investigation were criticized and then rejected by [[Democrats]]. U.S. Representative James Sensenbrenner ([[Republican|R]]-[[Wisconsin]]) said, "These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit."<ref>Seth Borenstein. [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010411091_apsciclimatehearing.html Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails], ''The Seattle Times'', December 3, 2009.</ref> Democrats harbored ill will against the facts and continued to theorize that the [[earth]] is warming, insisting that the fraudulent data "[does] nothing to undermine the very strong scientific [[consensus]]," which showed a [[warming trend]] and claimed it is largely a result of human activity. The top [[Democrat]] on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, [[Barbara Boxer]], a global warming alarmist, said of the scandal, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate." Rather than investigate the fraud and manipulation of scientific data that was used by climate science researchers, Boxer hoped to get her hands on the so-called 'real' criminals, those who released e-mails and data to the public.<ref>[http://polijamblog.polijam.com/?p=11748 Sen. Boxer Attempts to Turn Climategate Into ‘Email-Theft-Gate’ as Warmist Scandal Grows], ''The PoliJAM Times Blog'', December 2, 2009.</ref>

===Other Countries Take Notice===
While U.S. [[Democrats|Democratic]] politicians downplayed the Climategate controversy, and despite the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scoffing at Climategate by suggesting it provided no basis for questioning the science behind global warming, global reactions from other countries around the world took notice of the scandal. [[Saudi Arabia]] called for an independent investigation into Climategate, warning that the scandal over stolen e-mails threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations. "The level of confidence is certainty shaken," said the Saudi Arabian negotiator. "We believe this scandal — or what has been referred to as the ‘Climategate’ scandal — we think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations."<ref>Lisa Lerer. [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30291.html Saudi Arabia calls for 'climategate' investigation], ''[[Politico]]'', December 07, 2009.</ref> Elsewhere, [[Australia]] had planned on setting an example to lead in the fight on climate change, to become one of the first countries to install a [[cap and trade]] system. However, [[Liberal Party]] members within Australia’s parliament realized that cap and trade is based on flawed science, and resigned their portfolios rather than voting for an "emissions trading scheme".<ref>[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/26/2754654.htm Senior Liberals Desert Turnbull], ''ABC News'', November 26, 2009.</ref>

[[File:GlobalWarmingLie.jpg|right|200px]]

==Climategate Media Coverage==
The Climategate media coverage refers to the journalistic methods used by the the Mainstream media to deceive the public from learning more specific details about the fraudulent climate data. In the wake of the Climategate scandal, a truly bizarre situation happened; the [[Mainstream media|mainstream media]] stories about global warming pretended the uncovered documents never happened. This worldwide Climategate cover-up also occurred before the public had learned about Climategate, too. The [[U.K.]] ''[[Daily Mail]]'' pointed out that, a month prior to November 19, 2009, the first unreported instance where political ideology reigned over journalistic duties happened over at BBC News:
{{cquote|The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud.<ref name=bbclie>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html BBC weatherman ‘ignored’ leaked climate row emails], [[Daily Mail|dailymail.co.uk]], November 28, 2009.</ref>}}

Climategate coverage of the scandal is a [[media]]-focused overview from the most notable discussions covering Climategate: the revealed data, e-mails and manipulated code sets. As details emerged from the Climategate scandal, Climatic Research Unit scientists at the University of East Anglia were exposed. Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on climate science, the leftist media ignored it, and then focused on pushing forward with the [[global warming]] [[hoax]].<ref name=climatehoax>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120809/content/01125110.guest.html Hoax: Climate Change Makes Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism], RushLimbaugh.com, December 8, 2009.</ref> Coverage of Climategate showed just how [[bias]] the [[liberal media]] has become in order to advance an environmental agenda.

As Climategate was totally ignored by most TV news outlets, ''[[Fox News]]'' appeared to be the only national news media in [[United States|America]] interested in the growing scandal.<ref>John Lott. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/john-lott-climate-change-emails-copenhagen/ Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate'], FOXNews.com, November 24, 2009.</ref><ref name=accuracyinmedia/> Perhaps the [[MSM]] felt that by ignoring Climategate entirely that it would have just gone away. However, just as the case was during the [[Tea Party Movement]], notably during the [[Tax Day Tea Party]], [[blog|bloggers]] and the readers of the global warming stories kept bringing up [[An Inconvenient Truth|the inconvenient truth]] of Climategate by mentioning the scandal "over and over and over again."<ref>P.J. Gladnick. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/24/climategate-msm-writers-try-ignore-scandal-global-warming-stories-read Climategate: MSM Writers Try to Ignore Scandal in Global Warming Stories But Readers Bring Them Back to Reality], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>

[[File:GlobalWarmingFraud Newsbusters.jpg|left|200px]]

===Global Warming Hoax===
On December 08, the second day of [[Copenhagen]], news from the ''UK Telegraph'' headlined a Global warming hoax, "Starving Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism."
{{cquote|New pictures show that polar bears are beginning to cannibalize each other as global warming destroys its hunting grounds. The images, taken in Hudson Bay, Canada, around 200 miles north of the town of Churchill, Manitoba, show a male polar bear carrying the bloodied head of a polar bear cub it has killed for food. Polar bears usually subsist on seals, which they hunt from a platform of sea ice. But the melting of sea ice as a result of rising global temperatures has made it more difficult for polar bears to hunt seals at sea.<ref>Jonathan Liew. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6760103/Starving-polar-bears-turn-to-cannibalism.html Starving polar bears turn to cannibalism], Telegraph.co.uk, December 08, 2009.</ref>}}

[[Rush Limbaugh]] blasted the Global Warming hoax and commented, "None of this is true" (Dyck, M.G., 2007).<ref>Dyck, M.G. et al., Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the ‘‘ultimate’’ survival control factor?, Ecol. Complex. (2007), doi:[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002 10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002]</ref> He rebuked the false claims about [[polar bears]] and at the same time pointed out the continuation of fraudulent stories from the media despite Climategate; Limbaugh revealed another hoax blaming a natural event on global warming.
{{cquote|If you know anything about polar bears, you know that there are any number of reasons why polar bears attack each other. But did you know that polar bear males are well known for eating their young if given half a chance? They do. The mother, the female polar bear has to protect the cubs from the father and other males. Polar bears are a vicious species. They're not this cuddly little old English sheepdog type thing. People go out on ice floes to study these things, and if they attack they have to shoot them. They're not at all in any way tame, and they're huge. They can rip you to shreds inside of five seconds, they wouldn't care, and Reuters would run a picture and blame it all on global warming, not the fact that a polar bear is a polar bear. Polar bears eat their young, if given half the chance, males do. So another hoax, 100% total fraud on the second day of Copenhagen.<ref name=climatehoax/>}}

==Climategate Cover-up==
Fourteen days after the story broke worldwide, the Climategate scandal had been mentioned by [[ABC]], [[CBS]] and [[NBC]] a total of '''''zero''''' times. Because the story affects [[Cap and trade]] legislation, the [[White House]], in their daily collusion with [[liberal media]] sources, may have told news channels to bury the story.<ref>Diane Macedo. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html Comedy Central Scoops Network News on Climate-Gate Scandal], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref> From ''NewsBusters'', it was reported that [[Glenn Beck]] used the news source to, "Demonstrate that much as in [the mainstream media's] boycott of the [[ACORN]] scandal and green jobs czar [[Van Jones|Van Jones's]] peculiar associations, the television press are once again hiding important information from the public hoping it will all just go away."<ref name=nbstaff>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/11/24/glenn-beck-cites-newsbusters-bash-tvs-climategate-boycott Glenn Beck Cites NewsBusters to Bash TV's ClimateGate Boycott], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txh_BXdeWBU ClimateGate... What??], Glen Beck on ClimateGate censorship.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upkO0j3fN9A ClimateGate], Glenn Beck on ClimateGate scandal.

===Unreported and Censored===
[[File:Leftist News.gif | right]]
The liberal [[Wikipedia]] has cited various references to contend against the facts uncovered with Climategate and has claimed that the e-mail files were illegally stolen by computer hackers, despite repeated requests for the data files under the [[FOIA]]. Though unreported by the [[MSM]] and at the same time [[censorship|censored]] by liberal Wikipedia, there is strong evidence to suggest the data was released by a fellow employee, a "whistle blower" within the Climatic Research Unit.<ref>[http://www.junkscience.com Those <s>"hacked"</s> released CRU files], JunkScience.com, December 03, 2009.</ref>

* There was no "security breach" at CRU that "stole" these files
* The files appear genuine and to have been prepared by CRU staff, not edited by malicious hackers
* The information was accidentally or deliberately released by CRU staff
* Selection criteria appears to be compliance with an or several FOIA request(s)

The [[U.K.]] ''Daily Mail'' pointed out the following:
{{cquote|The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud.<ref name=bbclie/>}}

===Liberal Media Missed the Mark===
The first liberal media source to openly discuss Climategate on [[United States|American]] [[television]] was during a segment on [[Comedy Central|Comedy Central's]] ''[[The Daily Show]]'' with [[Jon Stewart]], a slapstick entertainment news program. After more than two weeks had passed since Climategate went public, CBS evening news finally reported on the scandal. However, CBS missed the mark and called the scandal by its [[Google]] created name: "Climate Gate" — and then CBS provided a weird subtitle in their news article that said, "Leaked E-Mails Provide Climate Change Deniers Ammunition Near Beginning of Global Summit."<ref>Kimberly Dozier. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/05/eveningnews/main5908487.shtml "Climate Gate" Casts Cloud on Change Meet], ''[[CBS News]]'', December 5, 2009.</ref> ''[[CBS News]]'' also aired a short video of an interview with Kevin Trenberth. Dr. Trenberth in the past has said this in one of the CRU e-mails:
{{cquote|The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/cbs-finally-reports-on-climategate-dr-trenberth-interviewed/ CBS finally reports on Climategate: Dr. Trenberth interviewed], ''WUWT'', December 06, 2009.</ref>}}

===Googlegate===
[[File:Gore firegloablawarminghoax.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Al Gore]] demonstrating how his ability to spout fire is somehow proof of his silly 'global warming is man-made' fraud.]]
It was reported that, despite Climategate related pages being the most-read articles of the UK's ''Telegraph'' entire online operation, mysteriously when attempting to search using [[Google]] – it didn't feature links related to Climategate.<ref>Anthony Watts. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/climategate-surpasses-global-warming-on-google-autosuggest-still-blocked/ “Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google], ''Watts Up With That?'', November 28, 2009.</ref> James Delingpole from the ''Telegraph'' noted, "Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me."<ref>James Delingpole. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018263/climategate-googlegate/ Climategate: Googlegate?], ''Telegraph Blogs'', November 29th, 2009.</ref> Google.com has been accused before of interfering with its own search [[algorithm|algorithms]] in order to interfere with searches for material deemed "[[Politically correct|not politically correct]]."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d29-Google-blocking-climategate-autosuggestion Google blocking 'climategate' autosuggestion], examiner.com, November 29, 2009.</ref><ref>Danny Sullivan. [http://searchengineland.com/of-climategate-googlegate-when-stories-get-too-long-30755 Of Climategate, Googlegate & When Stories Get Too Long], ''search engine land'', December 01, 2009.</ref> Through December 3rd, despite the rising search popularity for the query "Climategate," or "Climategate scandal," and attempted "Climate-Gate" keywords from about 26,400,000 articles on the [[World Wide Web|Web]], Google’s "autosuggestion" function in the search box was not suggesting "climategate." But rather, instead, Google and other search engines also began to suggest to Web searchers if they meant to search for "Climate Gate" rather than the intended query, "Climategate" or otherwise "Climategate scandal." However, by December 7th, Google was correctly displaying "climate-gate" in the autosuggest list, which led to a full list of search results about this scandal.

Al Gore's position on Google's senior advisory board is likely bearing responsibility; in Gore's bio he says:
{{cquote|A member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer, Inc. and a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc. Gore is also Visiting Professor at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.<ref>http://www.algore.com/about.html</ref>}}
According to ''[[NewsBusters]]'', [[Al Gore]] has done some "advising" of Google’s search quality in the past.<ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/15/al-gore-advised-google-about-its-search-quality Al Gore Advised Google About 'Search Quality'], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', October 15, 2009.</ref> There is some history between Google and Al Gore that has some bearing on the current situation.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/02/google-trends-on-climategate-show-public-interest-increasing-but-troubling-questions-loom/ Google trends on “climategate” show public interest increasing – but troubling questions loom], ''Watts Up With That?'', December 02, 2009.</ref> In the case of "Climategate," Mr. Gore's ability to continue his current speaking engagements might be hampered. Thus, there could well be a motive for him doing some "advising" in this case. A phone call might be all it took.

==Videos==
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZszGJHbK4 The Stroke Of A Pen], 'Lord Christopher Monckton' closing statement at the Minnesota Free Market Institute.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk 'Hide The Decline'], satire starring Michael Mann.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI 'The Twelve Days of Global Warming'], satire starring Al Gore.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQXY4tWaoI It's A Climategate Christmas], satire on Global warming post-ClimateGate.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF5F6eYho8U Imagine There's No Global Warming], satire of John Lennon's song "Imagine" turned politically incorrect.
* Global Warming, Or A Lot of Hot Air? ''Fox News'' reporting: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqi7fxERiqk Part 1] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnCLQIYNYgo Part 2] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UisVhZHouq4 Part 3] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Pj6uWTgXM Part 4] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWYuZs6Idb8 Part 5] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BTS3K9DFy0 Part 6]

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==Also See==

* Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (November 11, 2008) by Christopher C. Horner ISBN 1596985380


==External Links==
* [http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Watts Up With That?] - Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
* [http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3943/Read-All-About-it-Climate-Depot-Exclusive--Continuously-Updated-ClimateGate-News-Round-Up Climate Depot] - Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round Up
* [http://www.PJTV.com/climategate PJTV Covers Climategate] - Full coverage of how scientists cooked data on climate change
* [http://www.nocapandtrade.com/ ClimateGate] - Facts on climate change
* [http://eastangliaemails.com/ The CRU emails] - East Anglia confirmed emails from the Climatic Research Unit

{{Climategate scandal}}

[[Category: Global Warming]]
[[Category: Earth Sciences]]
[[Category: Ecology]]
[[Category: Science]]
[[Category: Environment]]
[[Category: Environmentalism]]
[[Category: Deceit]]

Climategate

2010-02-03T04:38:04Z

LowKey: /* Global Reactions to Climategate */ again, not full resignations

[[File:Gorelying.jpg|right|300px|thumb|[[Al Gore]] on CNN's ''American Morning'', December 9, 2009, in which he stated that snow is melting from the polar icecaps and glaciers at a rapid rate, and that the "global warming deniers" manipulated the emails from CRU out of context. 
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtdoPeYdNRA Al Gore Weighs In On Climate Gate], ''CNN'' interview pt.1 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3IRdkPkatE Al Gore Weighs In On Climate Gate], ''CNN'' interview pt.2]]
[[File:UnitedStatesSnow slideshow 604x500.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Image from NASA showing a record snowfall in the western United States on December 9, 2009, contradicting Gore's claim. (NASA)]]
The '''Climategate''' scandal erupted when emails were exposed, showing [[scientific fraud|fraud]] and [[manipulation]]s by scientists concerning the [[Global Warming Theory]], which asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures and thus [[climate change]]. On November 19, 2009, climate [[science]] was severely shaken by the release of a collection of [[e-mail]] messages, together with a collection of data and data processing programs, that were hacked or revealed by a whistle blower from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the [[United Kingdom|UK]], one of the key centers of [[global warming]] research.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/ Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released], ''Watts Up With That?'', November 19, 2009.</ref> The Climategate emails and climate data have been the subject of intense debate, calling to question assumptions on [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic (man-made) global warming]]; evidence revealed told the truth about man-made [[global warming]]: it's a [[fraud]].<ref>James Delingpole. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018246/climategate-how-the-greatest-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation-got-its-name/ Climategate: how the 'greatest scientific scandal of our generation' got its name], Telegraph.co.uk, November 29, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125109.guest.html Universe of Lies: Big Warmers Try to Whitewash ClimateGate Fraud], RushLimbaugh.com, November 30, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered], ''American Thinker'', November 25, 2009.</ref><ref>Steve McIntyre. [http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem], climateaudit.org, September 27, 2009.</ref><ref>Andrew Orlowski. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/one-of-the-frauds-behind-the-cru One Of The Scandals In The CRU Emails], ''Sweetness & Light'', September 29, 2009.</ref> The scandal that the suffix –'''gate''' implies is the state of climate science over the past decade revealed by a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists released following the leaked data from the Climatic Research Unit.<ref name=3things>Iain Murray. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/ Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref> Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific [[hoax]] in world history as the worst [[scandal]] of this [[generation]].<ref>Christopher Booker. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation], Telegraph.co.uk, November 28, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/videos/?uri=channels/338017/667734 The Biggest Scam In History (Video)], ''The Glenn Beck Program'', December 01, 2009.</ref>

Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on [[climate science]], in a profoundly bizarre situation the [[Mainstream media]] attempted to bury the Climategate story.<ref name=accuracyinmedia>Allie Duzett. [http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-ignore-climate-science-scandal/ Media Ignore Climate Science Scandal], [[Accuracy In Media]], November 23, 2009.</ref> At the same time, liberal [[Wikipedia]] quickly [[Censorship|censored]] Climategate and referred to it as an illegal "incident," as the work of computer hackers stealing data — despite [[Freedom of Information Act]] requests. Contrary to the [[Liberal media|liberal media's]] attempt to hide the scandal, Climategate has received news coverage from notable sources in the [[media]]. Commentators and others in the media have covered news on Climategate, many of which have outlined important takeaways about specific information valuable to the public.<ref>Larrey Anderson. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/revenge_of_the_computer_nerds_1.html Revenge of the Computer Nerds], ''American Thinker'', December 09, 2009.</ref>

==Climategate Scandal==
[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]
Climate science was troubled after news reports of the Climategate scandal went public, after the release of a thousand email messages and a collection of data and data processing programs from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.<ref>Christopher C. Horner. [http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/media-missing-the-plot-on-climate-gate-its-the-fraud-stupid/#more-35302 Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!], BigGovernment.com, November 23, 2009.</ref> The trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool was called into question. On November 29, with the publication of a report by ''The Sunday Times'' of [[London]], it was reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref> The admittance occurred following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

[[Michelle Malkin]] reported on the University of East Anglia, the research institution at the center of Climategate. She detailed one of the many problems that will occur as a result of such data loss, "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/30/document-dump-a-palooza/ Document-dump-a-palooza], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 30, 2009.</ref> The Climategate scandal is a worldwide corruption of climate science and is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. It was discovered that the reported [[warming trend]] in [[New Zealand]] over the past 156 years (from 1853 to 2008) was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature data.<ref>P.J. Gladnick. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/26/climategate-scandal-spreads-new-zealand-msm-continues-ostrich-act Climategate Scandal Spreads to New Zealand as MSM Continues Ostrich Act], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 26, 2009.</ref> The centerpiece of New Zealand's ''National Institute of Water & Atmospheric'' research temperature claims have been proven false.<ref>The revelations were published on November 25, 2009, from ''The Climate Science Coalition'' of NZ: [http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf PDF] A paper collated by Richard Treadgold, of the ''Climate Conversation Group'', from a combined research project undertaken by members of the ''Climate Conversation Group'' and the [[New Zealand]] ''Climate Science Coalition''.</ref> This data contributes to global temperature statistics and the [[IPCC]] reports. It is partly why the [[Obama administration]] is insisting on participating in the climate conference in [[Copenhagen]].

The CRU scientists deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. This is [[criminal]] [[fraud]] under [[English]] [[Law]]. Because of the worldwide fraud revealed from Climategate and the burden it has caused to the global scientific community, on December 01, 2009, [[Phil Jones]], the director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the [[United Kingdom]] stepped down pending the investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578486,00.html Facing Scandal, Head of Climate Research Lab to Temporarily Step Down], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref> On January 28, 2010, from the ''London Times'', inquiry over the Climategate emails found Phil Jones broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.<ref>Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Jonathan Leake. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data], ''The London Times'', January 28, 2010.</ref> [[Michael Mann]] is still under investigation by [[Pennsylvania State University]].

From the [[United States]] Climategate, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) had their attorneys file three Notices of Intent to File Suit against [[NASA]]. Chris Horner, representing CEI, said the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act for the past three years.<ref>Tony Pann. [http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m11d25-Climategate-CEI-to-sue-NASA-Goddard-for-Climate-Change-fraud Climategate: CEI to sue NASA Goddard for Climate Change fraud], ''Baltimore Weather Examiner'', November 25, 2009.</ref> The Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers worldwide, including NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.<ref>Joseph D'Aleo. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-noaa-and-nasa-complicit-in-data-manipulation/ Climategate: NOAA and NASA Complicit in Data Manipulation], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', January 29, 2010.</ref> NASA's two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, "systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations."<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518890 A U.S. ClimateGate?], Investors.com, January 22, 2010.</ref>

:* The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today.

:* The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.

Stations in places such as the [[Andes]] and [[Bolivia]] have virtually vanished, and temperatures from these areas are now "determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon." Average temperatures were extrapolated from readings in other cities across the world. This selectivity of locations made NASA's data and [[climate change]] conclusions skewed to to advance the global warming agenda rather than create data based on scientific facts. The Climategate emails showed that climatologists had conspired to suppress research challenged the global warming orthodoxy.<ref>NP Editor. [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/29/steve-janke-more-unsettling-science-in-the-global-warming-camp.aspx Steve Janke: More unsettling science in the global warming camp], ''[[National Post]]'', January 29, 2010.</ref>

The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a [[criminal]] intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a [[cap and trade]] scheme as part of a Global Warming movement. Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a [[FOIA]] request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable [[university]].

The ''CBC’s'' Rex Murphy discussed Climategate in an editorial on December 03, 2009.
{{cquote|...Climate science has shown to be, in part, a sub-branch of climate politics. It is a situation intolerable even to serious minds who are on side with Global warming. Such as Clive Crook, who wrote in Atlantic magazine about this scandal as follows: 'the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'. Climate science needs its own reset button. And Climategate should be seen not primarily as a set-back, but as an opportunity to cleanse scientific method, to take science away from politics, good causes and alarmists. And vest climate science in bodies of guaranteed neutrality, openness, real in vigorous debate; and away from the lobbyists, the advocates, the Gore's, and professional environmentalists of all kinds. Too many of the current leadership on Global warming are more players than observers, gatekeepers and not investigators, angry partisans of some global engineering, rather than the humble servants of the facts of the case. Read the e-mails, you'll never think of climate science quite the same way again.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/you-wouldnt-accept-that-at-a-grade-9-science-fair-cbc-finds-a-moment-of-clarity/ “You wouldn’t accept that at a grade 9 science fair…” – CBC finds a moment of clarity on Climategate], ''WUWT'', December 03, 2009.</ref><ref>Clive Crook, senior editor of ''The Atlantic Monthly'' and former deputy editor of ''The Economist'': "The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And this scandal is not at the margins of the politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process. It goes to the core of that process." [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/03/climategate-fallout.aspx Climategate fallout], ''[[National Post]]'', December 03, 2009.</ref>}}

Iain Murray at ''Pajamas Media'' pointed out three takeaways that people must know about Climategate.<ref name=3things/>
<blockquote>
#First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are [[paleoclimatologist|paleoclimatologists]], who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in [[temperature|temperatures]] well above historical variation in recent decades.
#Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific [[peer review]] process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, [[Tom Wigley]] of the University Corporation for [[Atmosphere|Atmospheric]] Research in Boulder, [[Colorado]], complained that paleoclimatologist [[Hans von Storch]] was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” ([http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt 1051190249]) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).
#Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the [[Freedom of Information Act|Freedom of Information]] process of the United Kingdom.<ref>[http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=893&filename=1212073451.txt Alleged CRU Email - 1212073451.txt]</ref><ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=490&keyword= Email - Re: For your eyes only]</ref>
</blockquote>

===Data Manipulation===
[[Image:Orange sun large.jpg|thumb|right|300px|On December 10, 2009, [[Roy W. Spencer]], Ph. D., showed the potential effects of sunspot activity on climate, detailing [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/geomagnetic-forcing-of-earth%E2%80%99s-cloud-cover-during-2000-2008/ solar geomagnetic to earth climate connections]. On the subject of solar activity affecting climate variations, the geomagnetic modulation of cloudiness has about 10 times the effect on the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth as does the solar cycle’s direct modulation of the sun’s output. It also rivals the level of forcing due to [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic]] [[Greenhouse effect|greenhouse gas emissions]], but with way more variability from year to year and decade to decade. (Can anyone say, “natural climate variability”?)]]
The primary issue from Climategate is the data manipulation. [[Science]] requires data, and inadequacy of the climate record was always a problem even before Climategate became known to the public. Dr. [[Tim Ball]] wrote in the ''Canada Free Press'' on the primary issue from Climategate:
{{cquote|Climatology recognizes three distinct periods: The very recent instrumental period; the historical period to 3000 years, and the geologic [and] biologic for the rest. The [Climatic Research Unit scientists] manipulated data in all three but the first is critical because it is the source of material for the computer models, the vehicle of their deception. [...] They claim [the emails] are taken out of context. In context the fullness of their criminality is exposed. They claim there’s nothing of consequence in the emails, but [the emails show] a litany of [[manipulation]] of, the data, the process, publications, [[peer review]], and [[personal attack]]s.<ref name=datamanipulation>Dr. Tim Ball. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17916 The New Big Lie: Climategate Emails Are Not Significant], ''Canada Free Press'', December 14, 2009.</ref>}}

Climategate shows strong evidence of fraud, and may show smoking-gun proof of a cover-up by CRU scientists to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails], FOXNews.com, November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html The Evidence of Climate Fraud], ''American Thinker'', November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 25, 2009.</ref> From ''Cube Antics'', by Robert Greiner, who is a scientist and engineer "with an agnostic stand on global warming," he offered a statement about the research methods of the CRU scientists, attempting to show proof that they had the means and intent to falsify data. Greiner pointed out that the Climategate emails alone do not provide sufficient proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. What the Climategate emails do show is that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money; moreover, within the collection of data and data processing programs revealed from Climategate, code from the CRU shows proof that valid [[temperature station]] readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref name=codeproof>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/ The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle], ''Cube Antics'', December 03, 2009.</ref> Analysis of the CRU's code revealed the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. Greiner reiterated his findings:
{{cquote|First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce. This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing. If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.<ref name=codeproof/>}}

On December 05, 2009, Robert Greiner pointed out the four most frequent concerns dealing with the CRU’s source code uncovered from Climategate:<ref name=codepart2>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/climategate-code-analysis-part-2/ Climategate Code Analysis Part 2], ''Cube Antics'', December 05, 2009.</ref>
<blockquote>
:1. The source code that actually printed the graph was commented out and, therefore, is not valid proof.
:2. No proof exists that shows this code was used in publishing results.
:3. Interpolation is a normal part of dealing with large data sets, this is no different.
:4. You need the raw climate data to prove that foul play occurred.
</blockquote>
After further analysis, his first concern pointed out that the source code that printed the graph was commented out and thus is not valid proof. On the second concern, Greiner clarified that, "Enough proof exists that the CRU had both the means and intent to intentionally falsify data. This means that all of their research results cannot be trusted until they are verified. Period." The third concern as pointed out by Greiner is not about the fact that the CRU researchers used [[Interpolated|interpolation]]; the issue is the weight of the "valadj" array with respect to the raw data. Greiner said, "valadj simply introduces '''too large''' of an influence to the original data to do anything productive with it." Fourthly, Greiner said that raw climate data is needed to prove that foul play has actually occurred. He said, "It simply doesn’t matter if the raw climate data are correct or not to demonstrate the extreme bias the valadj array forces on the raw data. So, the raw data could actually be temperature data or corporate sales figures, the result is the same; a severe manipulation of data."<ref name=codepart2/>

====Integrity of Data====
Climategate has jeopardized the [[integrity]] of worldwide scientific data on [[climate change]].<ref name=dataintegrity>Willis Eschenbach. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero], ''Watts Up With That?'', December 08, 2009.</ref><ref>On December 11, 2009, the ''Economist'' published an unsigned article attacking the work by Willis Eschenbach. This open letter is Eschenbach's reply. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ Willis: Reply to the Economist], ''WUWT'', December 12, 2009.</ref> There are two objections that question the validity of temperature data from the IPCC report released in 2007, one of which Climategate does not affect. The earth has generally been warming since the [[Little Ice Age]], around [[AD]] 1650 (Akasofu, 2007).<ref>Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”? (2007) A possible cause of global warming [http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf PDF] by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, ''International Arctic Research Center'', University of Alaska Fairbanks.</ref> The second objection has questioned the integrity of the data, as pointed out from ''Watts Up With That?'' in an article written by Willis Eschenbach. There are three main global temperature datasets, as clarified by Eschenbach.

:* One is at the [[CRU]], Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.
:* Another one is at NOAA ([[GHCN]]), the Global Historical Climate Network.
:* The final one is at NASA ([[GISS]]), the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The three groups take raw data, and they "homogenize" it to remove temperature discrepancy's that occur when a station is moved to a warmer or colder location. One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU basically uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) dataset for its raw data.<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=GHCN&topEmails=&submit=Search Search - GHCN], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> This raw data is downloaded from GISS, but GISS uses the GHCN raw data as the starting point for their analysis. Both GISS and CRU get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. But the [[IPCC]] uses the "adjusted" data; GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls "inhomogeneities."

At [[Darwin]] Airport there are five separate individual station records that are combined to make up the final Darwin record.<ref>[http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=darwin GISS Surface Temperature Analysis], data.giss.nasa.gov.</ref> In 1941, a station was moved to Darwin Airport. The GHCN then removed the inhomogeneities to adjust the data. Of the five raw datasets at Darwin, the GHCN discarded two. The three remaining records were first homogenized and then averaged to give the "GHCN Adjusted" temperature record for Darwin. Before the GHCN homogenized the data, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century. After the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century.

Willis Eschenbach looked into it further and started with the earliest record, "Station Zero" at Darwin. The five different station records (raw data) covering Darwin from 1941 on all agreed almost exactly. What Eschenbach found was that there is "indisputable evidence that the 'homogenized' data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming." The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station shows that at least one part of the data is bad at Darwin Zero.
{{cquote|They’ve just added a huge, artificial, totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! A six degree per century trend? What’s up with that? [...] The GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them. That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it 'hides the decline.' [...] Care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? They only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941. Every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling.<ref name=dataintegrity/>}}
Separate from GHCN, GISS takes the raw temperature data and does their own adjustments. However, GISS verified that their adjusted, homogenized data is the same as GHCN.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/ GISS “raw” station data – before and after], ''WUWT'', December 11, 2009.</ref> The data is questionable because the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) manipulates the data prior to its use by others; this process was described as homogenizing. The CRU apparently "lost" their data. Scientists at the CRU, who produce global annual average temperatures, select stations that create the results they want, then adjust the data again for fraudulent purposes.<ref name=datamanipulation/> Climategate revealed a fact that, until all of the station "adjustments" are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS cannot be trusted if using homogenized numbers.

[[Image:GlobalTemps June2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|'''8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps.''' Dr. Roy Spencer in June 2009 announced on his [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/june-2009-global-temperature-anomaly-update-000-deg-c/ blog] that June's anomaly globally using the Aqua satellite dropped to 0.001C. '''This continued downtrend started after 2001''', and is another indicator [[Global Warming]] alarmists have certainly embodied a hoax. It was also reported: '''Sea Level Rise; A Major Non-existent Threat Exploited by Alarmists:''' Truth about sea level is a major casualty of the war to implement whatever is deemed necessary to implement legislation to increase [[Big government|Big Government]] power and control, including [[Socialist]] [[Income redistribution]] ideologies. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12629 ''Canada Free Press''] - http://www.climatedepot.com/]]

====Hockey Stick Graph====
In one Climategate [[e-mail]] dated November 1999, CRU chief P.D. Jones wrote to [[Michael Mann]], Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes:
{{cquote|I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to '''hide the decline'''.<ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html UN Climate Reports: They Lie], ''American Thinker'', October 05, 2009.</ref>}}

Michael Mann's [[hockey stick graph]] hid the real declining temperatures and instead showed a [[warming trend]].<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/ Historical video perspective: global warming in the context of scale], ''WUWT'', December 12, 2009.</ref> Mann's graph portrayed temperatures as steadily declining since [[Medieval Warm Period|medieval times]] and then sharply rising in the last century and a half. Notably, his reconstruction fueled claims that 1998 and following years had the highest temperatures in 1,000 years. Once it became publicly known that man-made global warming is a hoax, as a direct result of the e-mail discussing a "trick" for adding data to each temperature series for the last 20 years, Climategate motivated the making of a video called, "Hide The Decline."<ref>Derek Erwin. [http://derekerwin.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate-video-hide-decline.html Video of the Year: 'Hide The Decline' - Climategate], ''A 1-In-100 Blogger'', November 27, 2009.</ref>

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

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


====Videos on Hockey Stick Graph====

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data], the “unprecedented” temperatures of the present day when put in perspective of geologic time.
* ''Hi-Definition'': [http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif Historical perspective slide show (.GIF)], “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale.
* ''Low-res'': [http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif Historical perspective slide show (.GIF)], “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale.


===Climategate Fraud===
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rain forest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland. However, Climategate forced the United Nations climate watchdog to admit intentionally publishing false claims; the IPCC claims about melting ice in the [[Alps]], the [[Andes]], and in [[Africa]] did not come from [[peer review|peer reviewed]] scientific literature—but from ''Climbing Magazine'', and from a student dissertation—written by a [[climate change]] [[activist]] who was studying for a degree in [[Geography]].<ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/35784/ Exclusive: Yet another climategate?], ''The Glenn Beck Program'', February 1, 2010.</ref> The IPCC claims that global warming might wipe out 40% of the [[Amazon River|Amazon]] [[Forest|rainforest]] was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.<ref>Jonathan Leake. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim], ''[[The Sunday Times]]'', January 31, 2010.</ref><ref>Richard Gray. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article], Telegraph.co.uk, January 30, 2010.</ref>

In another crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement, [[Greenpeace]] leader [[Gerd Leipold]] admitted that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that [[Arctic]] [[ice]] would disappear completely by 2030.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/greenpeace-leader-admits-organization-put-out-fake-global-warming-data/ Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data], ''Info Wars'', August 20, 2009.</ref> Despite the admission that a panel report warning [[Himalayan]] [[glaciers]] could be gone by 2035 was hundreds of years off, and regardless of the fraud, deceit and lies the Greenpeace organization spread about global warming, Gerd Leipold said he would not resign.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583711,00.html U.N. Climate Change Expert Cites More Errors in Report], ''[[Fox News]]'', January 25, 2010.</ref>

==Climategate Emails==
The Climategate emails discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure dissenting papers had no access to publication. The Climategate emails show that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money, deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. The collection of data and data processing programs, code from the CRU shows proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref>Steve Gilbert. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/some-summaries-of-the-cru-emails A Few Summaries Of Some ‘CRU Emails’], ''Sweetness & Light'', November 22, 2009.</ref>

===Themes===
On the climate science environmental agenda and the scandal that Climategate revealed all together, [[Glenn Beck]] commented on the [[e-mail|emails]]:
{{cquote|[The scientists] were asking each other to delete messages to avoid [[Freedom of Information Act]] requests. That doesn't sound legal. Scientists are working together to try and change the definition of [[peer review]] journals so that anybody who said global warming wasn't real couldn't get their papers published. ... [And then with] these thousands of E-mails ... Shouldn't this be - oh, I don't know - everywhere now? All of them are, to varying degrees, important. But how much could any of those actually cost you? This scandal will literally cost you trillions of dollars. That's what's at stake worldwide. It's on how we deal with the climate.<ref name=nbstaff>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/11/24/glenn-beck-cites-newsbusters-bash-tvs-climategate-boycott Glenn Beck Cites NewsBusters to Bash TV's ClimateGate Boycott], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>}}

According to [[Rush Limbaugh]], another theme of the e-mails that have been released is how people at the Climatic Research Unit were constantly trying to "shake down" the oil companies (ie. Exxon, Shell) for [[money]] and for partnerships.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/ Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support], ''WUWT'', December 04, 2009.</ref> On this reoccurring theme, Limbaugh mentioned the following:
{{cquote|They talk about it openly, how they're constantly trying to shake down the oil companies. The only thing man-made about global warming is the theory behind it. What you are going to do with people who are even willing to lie about the weather?<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125111.guest.html It's Not a Consensus, It's a Cabal], RushLimbaugh.com, November 30, 2009.</ref>}}

===IPCC and the CRU's 'Trick'===
Further analysis of the word "trick" and how it was used in the Climategate emails from the CRU provided interesting feedback. It showed that CRU did indeed truncate tree ring data, so that the real decline in global temperature is not shown in the [[IPCC]] report, as referenced by Steve McIntyre.<ref>Steve McIntyre. [http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483 IPCC and the “Trick”], climateaudit.org, December 10, 2009.</ref> McIntyre brought this to attention as an expert reviewer in the IPCC process in 2005, but at the time of inquiry his dissent was stifled and the discussion was never presented to external peer reviewers.

The explanation for the use of the word "trick" came quickly from CRU director Dr. Phil Jones in his official announcement on November 23rd. He claimed, "The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward." If Dr. Jones used such colloquialisms regularly, it stood to reason that further analysis should find a number of similar instances of the word "trick" in the CRU Climategate emails over the decade that the emails spanned. A file search program with a simple mission to scan the email folders for all file content with instances of the word "trick" used by itself (excluding other words like "Patrick" that would have "trick" embedded in it) returned eight files with that condition:<ref name=trickcount>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/counting-cru-tricks/ Counting CRU “tricks”], ''WUWT'', December 10, 2009.</ref>


* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=12&filename=843161829.txt 0843161829.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt 0942777075.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=365&filename=1065206624.txt 1065206624.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=366&filename=1065636937.txt 1065636937.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=454&filename=1103236623.txt 1103236623.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=796&filename=1179416790.txt 1179416790.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=812&filename=1188508827.txt 1188508827.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=852&filename=1200162026.txt 1200162026.txt]


After a second file search was executed to double check how many of the Climategate emails contained some permutation of the letters "t r i c k," it revealed 29 emails out of the 1079 emails in the [http://junkscience.com/FOIA/ FOIA2009.zip] file. Only one instance was found where Dr. Jones used the word "trick" in reference to a procedure on data. There are other uses and variations of the word "trick" in other emails, but only one instance attributed to Jones where he refers to this data issue. As Dr. Jones put it: The word ‘trick’ was used in the lone instance colloquially as in a clever thing to do (eg. "that’ll do the trick"). But it was questioned that one would expect to see it in general use by Dr. Jones in other emails if it was indeed a colloquialism. In the thousand plus Climategate emails, there’s no other use of the word "trick" by Dr. Jones related to data truncation or otherwise, though there are other colloquial uses of the word by other authors.<ref name=trickcount/>

===Wikipedia===
Lawrence Solomon from the ''[[National Post]]'' discovered from the Climategate emails how a small band of [[climatologists]] plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the [[Medieval Warm Period]].<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=Wikipedia&submit=Search Search - Wikipedia], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> The Climategate emails revealed the enlistment of [[Wikipedia]] in their attempt at rewriting history. It was revealed how Wikipedia’s "green doctor," a U.K. scientist and [[Green Party]] activist, rewrote 5,428 climate articles. The recruited [[Wikipedia]] administrator, William Connolley, literally rewrote history and then abused his administrative privileges to stifle criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/ Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes Wikipedia climate information], ''WUWT'', December 19, 2009.</ref> Lawrence Solomon wrote on this revelation and on Wikipedia's loss of [[integrity]] as a source of factual information, and on the clear abuse of power from administrative authorities within Wikipedia:
{{cquote|Starting in February 2003, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.<ref>Lawrence Solomon. [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor], ''[[National Post]]'', December 19, 2009.</ref>}}

==Global Reactions to Climategate==
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="350" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: lightblue no-repeat scroll top left;"|Climategate Scandal Spreads Worldwide
|-
! Nation!!Involvement in corruption of climate science
|- valign="center"
| [[File:50 star flag.png|50px]]||[[Pennsylvania State University|Penn State]] is investigating [[Michael Mann]] for his role in Climategate. [[Barack Obama]] is "doubling down" on his commitment to combat fake Global warming; the [[Obama administration]] dumps [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/12/17/2009-12-17_us_will_contribute_to_100b_climate_fund_for_developing_countries_hillary_clinton.html more U.S. taxpayer dollars] into a global $100 billion [[European Union]] climate change fund.
|-
| [[File:Flag of Australia.png|50px]]||Liberal Party members within [[Australia|Australia’s]] parliament resigned their portfolios rather than voted for a cap and trade scheme based on flawed science.
|-
| [[File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.png|50px]]||[[Saudi Arabia]] called for an independent investigation into Climategate.
|-
| [[File:Flag of New Zealand.png|50px]]||The centerpiece of New Zealand's ''National Institute of Water & Atmospheric'' research temperature claims are proven false: [http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf PDF]
|-
| [[File:Union jack.jpg|50px]]||The [[UK|UK's]] CRU director Phil Jones stepped down.
|-
| [[File:Flag of Russia.png|50px]]||[[Russia]] admitted the [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html CRU emails were uploaded on a Siberian Internet server] and denied involved, but [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/ "confirmed" that UK climate scientists manipulated data] to exaggerate global warming.
|-
|}

===Copenhagen===
[[Sarah Palin]] called for President Obama to skip [[Copenhagen]], the climate summit in [[Denmark]], because of the information Climategate exposed. She commented on [[Facebook]] that the president should reconsider his trip until the e-mails can be investigated, "Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the [[United States]] government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices."<ref name=obamacopenhagen>Wendell Goler. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/05/obama-s-shift-copenhagen-visit-defies-climate-gate-controversy/ Obama Ignores 'Climate-Gate' in Revising Copenhagen Plans], FOXNews.com, December 5, 2009.</ref> Instead, the [[The White House|White House]] attempted to downplay the controversial leaked e-mails of climate scientists. [[President Obama]] announced that he was "doubling down" on his commitment to the worldwide environmental agenda, pushing forward with a [[cap and trade]] scheme that is based on flawed science, and hoping to secure a "meaningful" agreement. The President made it clear that he will invest more energy and taxpayer dollars to help advance the global warming hoax.

Originally, the [[President of the United States of America|President]] was supposed to attend the U.N. Climate Conference in Copenhagen for the beginning of the conference, "bless the occasion and leave," said Roger Simon of ''[[Pajamas Media]]''. After Climategate became known, ''Pajamas Media'' reported that President Obama, "[S]witched his itinerary to be there at the end of the two weeks in order to give his blessing and impetus to the decision itself."<ref>Roger L. Simon. [http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/12/06/climategate-why-obama-switched-his-copenhagen-itinerary/ Climategate: Why Obama switched his Copenhagen itinerary], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', December 06, 2009.</ref>

===Obama Administration===
In a case of see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, the Obama administration showed commitment to [[climate change]] legislation and at the same time dismissive of Climategate. Though evidence revealed from the e-mail messages from the CRU shows that researchers manipulated data, suppressed data and stifled dissent, [[John Holdren]], Obama's science czar who is directly involved in the Climategate scandal stated boldly, "The science is proper and this is about a small fraction of research on the issue."<ref>Dr. Tim Ball, Judi McLeod. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183 Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal], ''Canada Free Press'', November 24, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/24/science-czar-john-holdren-and-climategate-perfect-together/ Science czar John Holdren and ClimateGate: Perfect together], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 24, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/02/white-house-science-officials-defend-climate-change-data-amid-e-mail-scandal/ White House Science Officials Defend Climate Change Data Amid E-Mail Scandal], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref> The [[reality]] is that this small 'fraction of research' — the theory which is the foundation of [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic global warming]] — the data used by CRU scientists, it is proven fraudulent. The [[theory]] which used to hold human beings responsible: it is nothing more than a Global warming scam, according to Jim O'Neill from the ''Canada Free Press''.<ref>Jim O'Neill. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17361 Attention Lawyers! Make Millions Off Of Climategate Crooks!], ''Canada Free Press'', November 30, 2009 .</ref> The scientists at the CRU, from the evidence found in their e-mails and documents, show a criminal intent to defraud the public of massive amounts of money, and at the same time advance an ideological [[Leftist]] agenda.<ref>Christopher Monckton. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/ Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', November 23, 2009.</ref>

===U.S. Congressional Comments===
When House [[Republicans]] asked for a hearing or investigation into the Climategate scandal, independent from the Penn State University which is looking into the Climategate emails by its own researcher, [[Michael Mann]], calls for further investigation were criticized and then rejected by [[Democrats]]. U.S. Representative James Sensenbrenner ([[Republican|R]]-[[Wisconsin]]) said, "These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit."<ref>Seth Borenstein. [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010411091_apsciclimatehearing.html Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails], ''The Seattle Times'', December 3, 2009.</ref> Democrats harbored ill will against the facts and continued to theorize that the [[earth]] is warming, insisting that the fraudulent data "[does] nothing to undermine the very strong scientific [[consensus]]," which showed a [[warming trend]] and claimed it is largely a result of human activity. The top [[Democrat]] on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, [[Barbara Boxer]], a global warming alarmist, said of the scandal, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate." Rather than investigate the fraud and manipulation of scientific data that was used by climate science researchers, Boxer hoped to get her hands on the so-called 'real' criminals, those who released e-mails and data to the public.<ref>[http://polijamblog.polijam.com/?p=11748 Sen. Boxer Attempts to Turn Climategate Into ‘Email-Theft-Gate’ as Warmist Scandal Grows], ''The PoliJAM Times Blog'', December 2, 2009.</ref>

===Other Countries Take Notice===
While U.S. [[Democrats|Democratic]] politicians downplayed the Climategate controversy, and despite the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scoffing at Climategate by suggesting it provided no basis for questioning the science behind global warming, global reactions from other countries around the world took notice of the scandal. [[Saudi Arabia]] called for an independent investigation into Climategate, warning that the scandal over stolen e-mails threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations. "The level of confidence is certainty shaken," said the Saudi Arabian negotiator. "We believe this scandal — or what has been referred to as the ‘Climategate’ scandal — we think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations."<ref>Lisa Lerer. [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30291.html Saudi Arabia calls for 'climategate' investigation], ''[[Politico]]'', December 07, 2009.</ref> Elsewhere, [[Australia]] had planned on setting an example to lead in the fight on climate change, to become one of the first countries to install a [[cap and trade]] system. However, due to an "emissions trading scheme" Climategate revealed, [[Liberal Party]] members within Australia’s parliament realized that cap and trade is based on flawed science. Liberal MP’s resigned their portfolios rather than voted for a cap and trade scheme.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/ripples-of-climategate-being-felt-worldwide-liberal-mps-desert-turnbull-in-australia-over-emissions-trading-scheme/ Ripples of Climategate? Liberal MP’s desert Turnbull in Australia over emissions trading scheme], ''WUWT'', November 25, 2009.</ref>

[[File:GlobalWarmingLie.jpg|right|200px]]

==Climategate Media Coverage==
The Climategate media coverage refers to the journalistic methods used by the the Mainstream media to deceive the public from learning more specific details about the fraudulent climate data. In the wake of the Climategate scandal, a truly bizarre situation happened; the [[Mainstream media|mainstream media]] stories about global warming pretended the uncovered documents never happened. This worldwide Climategate cover-up also occurred before the public had learned about Climategate, too. The [[U.K.]] ''[[Daily Mail]]'' pointed out that, a month prior to November 19, 2009, the first unreported instance where political ideology reigned over journalistic duties happened over at BBC News:
{{cquote|The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud.<ref name=bbclie>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html BBC weatherman ‘ignored’ leaked climate row emails], [[Daily Mail|dailymail.co.uk]], November 28, 2009.</ref>}}

Climategate coverage of the scandal is a [[media]]-focused overview from the most notable discussions covering Climategate: the revealed data, e-mails and manipulated code sets. As details emerged from the Climategate scandal, Climatic Research Unit scientists at the University of East Anglia were exposed. Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on climate science, the leftist media ignored it, and then focused on pushing forward with the [[global warming]] [[hoax]].<ref name=climatehoax>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120809/content/01125110.guest.html Hoax: Climate Change Makes Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism], RushLimbaugh.com, December 8, 2009.</ref> Coverage of Climategate showed just how [[bias]] the [[liberal media]] has become in order to advance an environmental agenda.

As Climategate was totally ignored by most TV news outlets, ''[[Fox News]]'' appeared to be the only national news media in [[United States|America]] interested in the growing scandal.<ref>John Lott. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/john-lott-climate-change-emails-copenhagen/ Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate'], FOXNews.com, November 24, 2009.</ref><ref name=accuracyinmedia/> Perhaps the [[MSM]] felt that by ignoring Climategate entirely that it would have just gone away. However, just as the case was during the [[Tea Party Movement]], notably during the [[Tax Day Tea Party]], [[blog|bloggers]] and the readers of the global warming stories kept bringing up [[An Inconvenient Truth|the inconvenient truth]] of Climategate by mentioning the scandal "over and over and over again."<ref>P.J. Gladnick. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/24/climategate-msm-writers-try-ignore-scandal-global-warming-stories-read Climategate: MSM Writers Try to Ignore Scandal in Global Warming Stories But Readers Bring Them Back to Reality], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>

[[File:GlobalWarmingFraud Newsbusters.jpg|left|200px]]

===Global Warming Hoax===
On December 08, the second day of [[Copenhagen]], news from the ''UK Telegraph'' headlined a Global warming hoax, "Starving Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism."
{{cquote|New pictures show that polar bears are beginning to cannibalize each other as global warming destroys its hunting grounds. The images, taken in Hudson Bay, Canada, around 200 miles north of the town of Churchill, Manitoba, show a male polar bear carrying the bloodied head of a polar bear cub it has killed for food. Polar bears usually subsist on seals, which they hunt from a platform of sea ice. But the melting of sea ice as a result of rising global temperatures has made it more difficult for polar bears to hunt seals at sea.<ref>Jonathan Liew. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6760103/Starving-polar-bears-turn-to-cannibalism.html Starving polar bears turn to cannibalism], Telegraph.co.uk, December 08, 2009.</ref>}}

[[Rush Limbaugh]] blasted the Global Warming hoax and commented, "None of this is true" (Dyck, M.G., 2007).<ref>Dyck, M.G. et al., Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the ‘‘ultimate’’ survival control factor?, Ecol. Complex. (2007), doi:[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002 10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002]</ref> He rebuked the false claims about [[polar bears]] and at the same time pointed out the continuation of fraudulent stories from the media despite Climategate; Limbaugh revealed another hoax blaming a natural event on global warming.
{{cquote|If you know anything about polar bears, you know that there are any number of reasons why polar bears attack each other. But did you know that polar bear males are well known for eating their young if given half a chance? They do. The mother, the female polar bear has to protect the cubs from the father and other males. Polar bears are a vicious species. They're not this cuddly little old English sheepdog type thing. People go out on ice floes to study these things, and if they attack they have to shoot them. They're not at all in any way tame, and they're huge. They can rip you to shreds inside of five seconds, they wouldn't care, and Reuters would run a picture and blame it all on global warming, not the fact that a polar bear is a polar bear. Polar bears eat their young, if given half the chance, males do. So another hoax, 100% total fraud on the second day of Copenhagen.<ref name=climatehoax/>}}

==Climategate Cover-up==
Fourteen days after the story broke worldwide, the Climategate scandal had been mentioned by [[ABC]], [[CBS]] and [[NBC]] a total of '''''zero''''' times. Because the story affects [[Cap and trade]] legislation, the [[White House]], in their daily collusion with [[liberal media]] sources, may have told news channels to bury the story.<ref>Diane Macedo. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html Comedy Central Scoops Network News on Climate-Gate Scandal], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref> From ''NewsBusters'', it was reported that [[Glenn Beck]] used the news source to, "Demonstrate that much as in [the mainstream media's] boycott of the [[ACORN]] scandal and green jobs czar [[Van Jones|Van Jones's]] peculiar associations, the television press are once again hiding important information from the public hoping it will all just go away."<ref name=nbstaff>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/11/24/glenn-beck-cites-newsbusters-bash-tvs-climategate-boycott Glenn Beck Cites NewsBusters to Bash TV's ClimateGate Boycott], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txh_BXdeWBU ClimateGate... What??], Glen Beck on ClimateGate censorship.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upkO0j3fN9A ClimateGate], Glenn Beck on ClimateGate scandal.

===Unreported and Censored===
[[File:Leftist News.gif | right]]
The liberal [[Wikipedia]] has cited various references to contend against the facts uncovered with Climategate and has claimed that the e-mail files were illegally stolen by computer hackers, despite repeated requests for the data files under the [[FOIA]]. Though unreported by the [[MSM]] and at the same time [[censorship|censored]] by liberal Wikipedia, there is strong evidence to suggest the data was released by a fellow employee, a "whistle blower" within the Climatic Research Unit.<ref>[http://www.junkscience.com Those <s>"hacked"</s> released CRU files], JunkScience.com, December 03, 2009.</ref>

* There was no "security breach" at CRU that "stole" these files
* The files appear genuine and to have been prepared by CRU staff, not edited by malicious hackers
* The information was accidentally or deliberately released by CRU staff
* Selection criteria appears to be compliance with an or several FOIA request(s)

The [[U.K.]] ''Daily Mail'' pointed out the following:
{{cquote|The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud.<ref name=bbclie/>}}

===Liberal Media Missed the Mark===
The first liberal media source to openly discuss Climategate on [[United States|American]] [[television]] was during a segment on [[Comedy Central|Comedy Central's]] ''[[The Daily Show]]'' with [[Jon Stewart]], a slapstick entertainment news program. After more than two weeks had passed since Climategate went public, CBS evening news finally reported on the scandal. However, CBS missed the mark and called the scandal by its [[Google]] created name: "Climate Gate" — and then CBS provided a weird subtitle in their news article that said, "Leaked E-Mails Provide Climate Change Deniers Ammunition Near Beginning of Global Summit."<ref>Kimberly Dozier. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/05/eveningnews/main5908487.shtml "Climate Gate" Casts Cloud on Change Meet], ''[[CBS News]]'', December 5, 2009.</ref> ''[[CBS News]]'' also aired a short video of an interview with Kevin Trenberth. Dr. Trenberth in the past has said this in one of the CRU e-mails:
{{cquote|The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/cbs-finally-reports-on-climategate-dr-trenberth-interviewed/ CBS finally reports on Climategate: Dr. Trenberth interviewed], ''WUWT'', December 06, 2009.</ref>}}

===Googlegate===
[[File:Gore firegloablawarminghoax.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Al Gore]] demonstrating how his ability to spout fire is somehow proof of his silly 'global warming is man-made' fraud.]]
It was reported that, despite Climategate related pages being the most-read articles of the UK's ''Telegraph'' entire online operation, mysteriously when attempting to search using [[Google]] – it didn't feature links related to Climategate.<ref>Anthony Watts. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/climategate-surpasses-global-warming-on-google-autosuggest-still-blocked/ “Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google], ''Watts Up With That?'', November 28, 2009.</ref> James Delingpole from the ''Telegraph'' noted, "Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me."<ref>James Delingpole. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018263/climategate-googlegate/ Climategate: Googlegate?], ''Telegraph Blogs'', November 29th, 2009.</ref> Google.com has been accused before of interfering with its own search [[algorithm|algorithms]] in order to interfere with searches for material deemed "[[Politically correct|not politically correct]]."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d29-Google-blocking-climategate-autosuggestion Google blocking 'climategate' autosuggestion], examiner.com, November 29, 2009.</ref><ref>Danny Sullivan. [http://searchengineland.com/of-climategate-googlegate-when-stories-get-too-long-30755 Of Climategate, Googlegate & When Stories Get Too Long], ''search engine land'', December 01, 2009.</ref> Through December 3rd, despite the rising search popularity for the query "Climategate," or "Climategate scandal," and attempted "Climate-Gate" keywords from about 26,400,000 articles on the [[World Wide Web|Web]], Google’s "autosuggestion" function in the search box was not suggesting "climategate." But rather, instead, Google and other search engines also began to suggest to Web searchers if they meant to search for "Climate Gate" rather than the intended query, "Climategate" or otherwise "Climategate scandal." However, by December 7th, Google was correctly displaying "climate-gate" in the autosuggest list, which led to a full list of search results about this scandal.

Al Gore's position on Google's senior advisory board is likely bearing responsibility; in Gore's bio he says:
{{cquote|A member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer, Inc. and a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc. Gore is also Visiting Professor at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.<ref>http://www.algore.com/about.html</ref>}}
According to ''[[NewsBusters]]'', [[Al Gore]] has done some "advising" of Google’s search quality in the past.<ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/15/al-gore-advised-google-about-its-search-quality Al Gore Advised Google About 'Search Quality'], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', October 15, 2009.</ref> There is some history between Google and Al Gore that has some bearing on the current situation.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/02/google-trends-on-climategate-show-public-interest-increasing-but-troubling-questions-loom/ Google trends on “climategate” show public interest increasing – but troubling questions loom], ''Watts Up With That?'', December 02, 2009.</ref> In the case of "Climategate," Mr. Gore's ability to continue his current speaking engagements might be hampered. Thus, there could well be a motive for him doing some "advising" in this case. A phone call might be all it took.

==Videos==
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZszGJHbK4 The Stroke Of A Pen], 'Lord Christopher Monckton' closing statement at the Minnesota Free Market Institute.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk 'Hide The Decline'], satire starring Michael Mann.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI 'The Twelve Days of Global Warming'], satire starring Al Gore.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQXY4tWaoI It's A Climategate Christmas], satire on Global warming post-ClimateGate.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF5F6eYho8U Imagine There's No Global Warming], satire of John Lennon's song "Imagine" turned politically incorrect.
* Global Warming, Or A Lot of Hot Air? ''Fox News'' reporting: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqi7fxERiqk Part 1] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnCLQIYNYgo Part 2] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UisVhZHouq4 Part 3] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Pj6uWTgXM Part 4] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWYuZs6Idb8 Part 5] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BTS3K9DFy0 Part 6]

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==Also See==

* Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (November 11, 2008) by Christopher C. Horner ISBN 1596985380


==External Links==
* [http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Watts Up With That?] - Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
* [http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3943/Read-All-About-it-Climate-Depot-Exclusive--Continuously-Updated-ClimateGate-News-Round-Up Climate Depot] - Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round Up
* [http://www.PJTV.com/climategate PJTV Covers Climategate] - Full coverage of how scientists cooked data on climate change
* [http://www.nocapandtrade.com/ ClimateGate] - Facts on climate change
* [http://eastangliaemails.com/ The CRU emails] - East Anglia confirmed emails from the Climatic Research Unit

{{Climategate scandal}}

[[Category: Global Warming]]
[[Category: Earth Sciences]]
[[Category: Ecology]]
[[Category: Science]]
[[Category: Environment]]
[[Category: Environmentalism]]
[[Category: Deceit]]

Climategate

2010-02-03T04:28:51Z

LowKey: /* Other Countries Take Notice */ not full resignations

[[File:Gorelying.jpg|right|300px|thumb|[[Al Gore]] on CNN's ''American Morning'', December 9, 2009, in which he stated that snow is melting from the polar icecaps and glaciers at a rapid rate, and that the "global warming deniers" manipulated the emails from CRU out of context. 
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtdoPeYdNRA Al Gore Weighs In On Climate Gate], ''CNN'' interview pt.1 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3IRdkPkatE Al Gore Weighs In On Climate Gate], ''CNN'' interview pt.2]]
[[File:UnitedStatesSnow slideshow 604x500.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Image from NASA showing a record snowfall in the western United States on December 9, 2009, contradicting Gore's claim. (NASA)]]
The '''Climategate''' scandal erupted when emails were exposed, showing [[scientific fraud|fraud]] and [[manipulation]]s by scientists concerning the [[Global Warming Theory]], which asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures and thus [[climate change]]. On November 19, 2009, climate [[science]] was severely shaken by the release of a collection of [[e-mail]] messages, together with a collection of data and data processing programs, that were hacked or revealed by a whistle blower from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the [[United Kingdom|UK]], one of the key centers of [[global warming]] research.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/ Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released], ''Watts Up With That?'', November 19, 2009.</ref> The Climategate emails and climate data have been the subject of intense debate, calling to question assumptions on [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic (man-made) global warming]]; evidence revealed told the truth about man-made [[global warming]]: it's a [[fraud]].<ref>James Delingpole. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018246/climategate-how-the-greatest-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation-got-its-name/ Climategate: how the 'greatest scientific scandal of our generation' got its name], Telegraph.co.uk, November 29, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125109.guest.html Universe of Lies: Big Warmers Try to Whitewash ClimateGate Fraud], RushLimbaugh.com, November 30, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered], ''American Thinker'', November 25, 2009.</ref><ref>Steve McIntyre. [http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 Yamal: A "Divergence" Problem], climateaudit.org, September 27, 2009.</ref><ref>Andrew Orlowski. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/one-of-the-frauds-behind-the-cru One Of The Scandals In The CRU Emails], ''Sweetness & Light'', September 29, 2009.</ref> The scandal that the suffix –'''gate''' implies is the state of climate science over the past decade revealed by a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists released following the leaked data from the Climatic Research Unit.<ref name=3things>Iain Murray. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/ Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref> Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific [[hoax]] in world history as the worst [[scandal]] of this [[generation]].<ref>Christopher Booker. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation], Telegraph.co.uk, November 28, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/videos/?uri=channels/338017/667734 The Biggest Scam In History (Video)], ''The Glenn Beck Program'', December 01, 2009.</ref>

Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on [[climate science]], in a profoundly bizarre situation the [[Mainstream media]] attempted to bury the Climategate story.<ref name=accuracyinmedia>Allie Duzett. [http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-ignore-climate-science-scandal/ Media Ignore Climate Science Scandal], [[Accuracy In Media]], November 23, 2009.</ref> At the same time, liberal [[Wikipedia]] quickly [[Censorship|censored]] Climategate and referred to it as an illegal "incident," as the work of computer hackers stealing data — despite [[Freedom of Information Act]] requests. Contrary to the [[Liberal media|liberal media's]] attempt to hide the scandal, Climategate has received news coverage from notable sources in the [[media]]. Commentators and others in the media have covered news on Climategate, many of which have outlined important takeaways about specific information valuable to the public.<ref>Larrey Anderson. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/revenge_of_the_computer_nerds_1.html Revenge of the Computer Nerds], ''American Thinker'', December 09, 2009.</ref>

==Climategate Scandal==
[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]
Climate science was troubled after news reports of the Climategate scandal went public, after the release of a thousand email messages and a collection of data and data processing programs from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.<ref>Christopher C. Horner. [http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/media-missing-the-plot-on-climate-gate-its-the-fraud-stupid/#more-35302 Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!], BigGovernment.com, November 23, 2009.</ref> The trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool was called into question. On November 29, with the publication of a report by ''The Sunday Times'' of [[London]], it was reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref> The admittance occurred following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

[[Michelle Malkin]] reported on the University of East Anglia, the research institution at the center of Climategate. She detailed one of the many problems that will occur as a result of such data loss, "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/30/document-dump-a-palooza/ Document-dump-a-palooza], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 30, 2009.</ref> The Climategate scandal is a worldwide corruption of climate science and is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. It was discovered that the reported [[warming trend]] in [[New Zealand]] over the past 156 years (from 1853 to 2008) was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature data.<ref>P.J. Gladnick. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/26/climategate-scandal-spreads-new-zealand-msm-continues-ostrich-act Climategate Scandal Spreads to New Zealand as MSM Continues Ostrich Act], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 26, 2009.</ref> The centerpiece of New Zealand's ''National Institute of Water & Atmospheric'' research temperature claims have been proven false.<ref>The revelations were published on November 25, 2009, from ''The Climate Science Coalition'' of NZ: [http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf PDF] A paper collated by Richard Treadgold, of the ''Climate Conversation Group'', from a combined research project undertaken by members of the ''Climate Conversation Group'' and the [[New Zealand]] ''Climate Science Coalition''.</ref> This data contributes to global temperature statistics and the [[IPCC]] reports. It is partly why the [[Obama administration]] is insisting on participating in the climate conference in [[Copenhagen]].

The CRU scientists deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. This is [[criminal]] [[fraud]] under [[English]] [[Law]]. Because of the worldwide fraud revealed from Climategate and the burden it has caused to the global scientific community, on December 01, 2009, [[Phil Jones]], the director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the [[United Kingdom]] stepped down pending the investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578486,00.html Facing Scandal, Head of Climate Research Lab to Temporarily Step Down], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref> On January 28, 2010, from the ''London Times'', inquiry over the Climategate emails found Phil Jones broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.<ref>Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Jonathan Leake. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data], ''The London Times'', January 28, 2010.</ref> [[Michael Mann]] is still under investigation by [[Pennsylvania State University]].

From the [[United States]] Climategate, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) had their attorneys file three Notices of Intent to File Suit against [[NASA]]. Chris Horner, representing CEI, said the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act for the past three years.<ref>Tony Pann. [http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m11d25-Climategate-CEI-to-sue-NASA-Goddard-for-Climate-Change-fraud Climategate: CEI to sue NASA Goddard for Climate Change fraud], ''Baltimore Weather Examiner'', November 25, 2009.</ref> The Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers worldwide, including NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.<ref>Joseph D'Aleo. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-noaa-and-nasa-complicit-in-data-manipulation/ Climategate: NOAA and NASA Complicit in Data Manipulation], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', January 29, 2010.</ref> NASA's two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, "systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations."<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518890 A U.S. ClimateGate?], Investors.com, January 22, 2010.</ref>

:* The number of actual weather stations used to calculate average global temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 today.

:* The number of reporting stations in Canada dropped from 600 to 35.

Stations in places such as the [[Andes]] and [[Bolivia]] have virtually vanished, and temperatures from these areas are now "determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon." Average temperatures were extrapolated from readings in other cities across the world. This selectivity of locations made NASA's data and [[climate change]] conclusions skewed to to advance the global warming agenda rather than create data based on scientific facts. The Climategate emails showed that climatologists had conspired to suppress research challenged the global warming orthodoxy.<ref>NP Editor. [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/29/steve-janke-more-unsettling-science-in-the-global-warming-camp.aspx Steve Janke: More unsettling science in the global warming camp], ''[[National Post]]'', January 29, 2010.</ref>

The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a [[criminal]] intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a [[cap and trade]] scheme as part of a Global Warming movement. Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a [[FOIA]] request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable [[university]].

The ''CBC’s'' Rex Murphy discussed Climategate in an editorial on December 03, 2009.
{{cquote|...Climate science has shown to be, in part, a sub-branch of climate politics. It is a situation intolerable even to serious minds who are on side with Global warming. Such as Clive Crook, who wrote in Atlantic magazine about this scandal as follows: 'the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'. Climate science needs its own reset button. And Climategate should be seen not primarily as a set-back, but as an opportunity to cleanse scientific method, to take science away from politics, good causes and alarmists. And vest climate science in bodies of guaranteed neutrality, openness, real in vigorous debate; and away from the lobbyists, the advocates, the Gore's, and professional environmentalists of all kinds. Too many of the current leadership on Global warming are more players than observers, gatekeepers and not investigators, angry partisans of some global engineering, rather than the humble servants of the facts of the case. Read the e-mails, you'll never think of climate science quite the same way again.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/you-wouldnt-accept-that-at-a-grade-9-science-fair-cbc-finds-a-moment-of-clarity/ “You wouldn’t accept that at a grade 9 science fair…” – CBC finds a moment of clarity on Climategate], ''WUWT'', December 03, 2009.</ref><ref>Clive Crook, senior editor of ''The Atlantic Monthly'' and former deputy editor of ''The Economist'': "The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And this scandal is not at the margins of the politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process. It goes to the core of that process." [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/03/climategate-fallout.aspx Climategate fallout], ''[[National Post]]'', December 03, 2009.</ref>}}

Iain Murray at ''Pajamas Media'' pointed out three takeaways that people must know about Climategate.<ref name=3things/>
<blockquote>
#First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are [[paleoclimatologist|paleoclimatologists]], who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in [[temperature|temperatures]] well above historical variation in recent decades.
#Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific [[peer review]] process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, [[Tom Wigley]] of the University Corporation for [[Atmosphere|Atmospheric]] Research in Boulder, [[Colorado]], complained that paleoclimatologist [[Hans von Storch]] was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” ([http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=307&filename=1051190249.txt 1051190249]) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).
#Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the [[Freedom of Information Act|Freedom of Information]] process of the United Kingdom.<ref>[http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=893&filename=1212073451.txt Alleged CRU Email - 1212073451.txt]</ref><ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=490&keyword= Email - Re: For your eyes only]</ref>
</blockquote>

===Data Manipulation===
[[Image:Orange sun large.jpg|thumb|right|300px|On December 10, 2009, [[Roy W. Spencer]], Ph. D., showed the potential effects of sunspot activity on climate, detailing [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/geomagnetic-forcing-of-earth%E2%80%99s-cloud-cover-during-2000-2008/ solar geomagnetic to earth climate connections]. On the subject of solar activity affecting climate variations, the geomagnetic modulation of cloudiness has about 10 times the effect on the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth as does the solar cycle’s direct modulation of the sun’s output. It also rivals the level of forcing due to [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic]] [[Greenhouse effect|greenhouse gas emissions]], but with way more variability from year to year and decade to decade. (Can anyone say, “natural climate variability”?)]]
The primary issue from Climategate is the data manipulation. [[Science]] requires data, and inadequacy of the climate record was always a problem even before Climategate became known to the public. Dr. [[Tim Ball]] wrote in the ''Canada Free Press'' on the primary issue from Climategate:
{{cquote|Climatology recognizes three distinct periods: The very recent instrumental period; the historical period to 3000 years, and the geologic [and] biologic for the rest. The [Climatic Research Unit scientists] manipulated data in all three but the first is critical because it is the source of material for the computer models, the vehicle of their deception. [...] They claim [the emails] are taken out of context. In context the fullness of their criminality is exposed. They claim there’s nothing of consequence in the emails, but [the emails show] a litany of [[manipulation]] of, the data, the process, publications, [[peer review]], and [[personal attack]]s.<ref name=datamanipulation>Dr. Tim Ball. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17916 The New Big Lie: Climategate Emails Are Not Significant], ''Canada Free Press'', December 14, 2009.</ref>}}

Climategate shows strong evidence of fraud, and may show smoking-gun proof of a cover-up by CRU scientists to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails], FOXNews.com, November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html The Evidence of Climate Fraud], ''American Thinker'', November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 25, 2009.</ref> From ''Cube Antics'', by Robert Greiner, who is a scientist and engineer "with an agnostic stand on global warming," he offered a statement about the research methods of the CRU scientists, attempting to show proof that they had the means and intent to falsify data. Greiner pointed out that the Climategate emails alone do not provide sufficient proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. What the Climategate emails do show is that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money; moreover, within the collection of data and data processing programs revealed from Climategate, code from the CRU shows proof that valid [[temperature station]] readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref name=codeproof>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/ The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle], ''Cube Antics'', December 03, 2009.</ref> Analysis of the CRU's code revealed the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. Greiner reiterated his findings:
{{cquote|First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce. This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing. If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.<ref name=codeproof/>}}

On December 05, 2009, Robert Greiner pointed out the four most frequent concerns dealing with the CRU’s source code uncovered from Climategate:<ref name=codepart2>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/climategate-code-analysis-part-2/ Climategate Code Analysis Part 2], ''Cube Antics'', December 05, 2009.</ref>
<blockquote>
:1. The source code that actually printed the graph was commented out and, therefore, is not valid proof.
:2. No proof exists that shows this code was used in publishing results.
:3. Interpolation is a normal part of dealing with large data sets, this is no different.
:4. You need the raw climate data to prove that foul play occurred.
</blockquote>
After further analysis, his first concern pointed out that the source code that printed the graph was commented out and thus is not valid proof. On the second concern, Greiner clarified that, "Enough proof exists that the CRU had both the means and intent to intentionally falsify data. This means that all of their research results cannot be trusted until they are verified. Period." The third concern as pointed out by Greiner is not about the fact that the CRU researchers used [[Interpolated|interpolation]]; the issue is the weight of the "valadj" array with respect to the raw data. Greiner said, "valadj simply introduces '''too large''' of an influence to the original data to do anything productive with it." Fourthly, Greiner said that raw climate data is needed to prove that foul play has actually occurred. He said, "It simply doesn’t matter if the raw climate data are correct or not to demonstrate the extreme bias the valadj array forces on the raw data. So, the raw data could actually be temperature data or corporate sales figures, the result is the same; a severe manipulation of data."<ref name=codepart2/>

====Integrity of Data====
Climategate has jeopardized the [[integrity]] of worldwide scientific data on [[climate change]].<ref name=dataintegrity>Willis Eschenbach. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero], ''Watts Up With That?'', December 08, 2009.</ref><ref>On December 11, 2009, the ''Economist'' published an unsigned article attacking the work by Willis Eschenbach. This open letter is Eschenbach's reply. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ Willis: Reply to the Economist], ''WUWT'', December 12, 2009.</ref> There are two objections that question the validity of temperature data from the IPCC report released in 2007, one of which Climategate does not affect. The earth has generally been warming since the [[Little Ice Age]], around [[AD]] 1650 (Akasofu, 2007).<ref>Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”? (2007) A possible cause of global warming [http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf PDF] by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, ''International Arctic Research Center'', University of Alaska Fairbanks.</ref> The second objection has questioned the integrity of the data, as pointed out from ''Watts Up With That?'' in an article written by Willis Eschenbach. There are three main global temperature datasets, as clarified by Eschenbach.

:* One is at the [[CRU]], Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.
:* Another one is at NOAA ([[GHCN]]), the Global Historical Climate Network.
:* The final one is at NASA ([[GISS]]), the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The three groups take raw data, and they "homogenize" it to remove temperature discrepancy's that occur when a station is moved to a warmer or colder location. One of the things that was revealed in the released CRU emails is that the CRU basically uses the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) dataset for its raw data.<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=GHCN&topEmails=&submit=Search Search - GHCN], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> This raw data is downloaded from GISS, but GISS uses the GHCN raw data as the starting point for their analysis. Both GISS and CRU get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. But the [[IPCC]] uses the "adjusted" data; GHCN adjusts the data to remove what it calls "inhomogeneities."

At [[Darwin]] Airport there are five separate individual station records that are combined to make up the final Darwin record.<ref>[http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=darwin GISS Surface Temperature Analysis], data.giss.nasa.gov.</ref> In 1941, a station was moved to Darwin Airport. The GHCN then removed the inhomogeneities to adjust the data. Of the five raw datasets at Darwin, the GHCN discarded two. The three remaining records were first homogenized and then averaged to give the "GHCN Adjusted" temperature record for Darwin. Before the GHCN homogenized the data, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century. After the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century.

Willis Eschenbach looked into it further and started with the earliest record, "Station Zero" at Darwin. The five different station records (raw data) covering Darwin from 1941 on all agreed almost exactly. What Eschenbach found was that there is "indisputable evidence that the 'homogenized' data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming." The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station shows that at least one part of the data is bad at Darwin Zero.
{{cquote|They’ve just added a huge, artificial, totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! A six degree per century trend? What’s up with that? [...] The GHCN adjusted Station 1 to match Darwin Zero’s strange adjustment, but they left Station 2 totally untouched. They only homogenized two of the three. Then they averaged them. That way, you get an average that looks kinda real, I guess, it 'hides the decline.' [...] Care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? They only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941. Every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling.<ref name=dataintegrity/>}}
Separate from GHCN, GISS takes the raw temperature data and does their own adjustments. However, GISS verified that their adjusted, homogenized data is the same as GHCN.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/ GISS “raw” station data – before and after], ''WUWT'', December 11, 2009.</ref> The data is questionable because the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) manipulates the data prior to its use by others; this process was described as homogenizing. The CRU apparently "lost" their data. Scientists at the CRU, who produce global annual average temperatures, select stations that create the results they want, then adjust the data again for fraudulent purposes.<ref name=datamanipulation/> Climategate revealed a fact that, until all of the station "adjustments" are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS cannot be trusted if using homogenized numbers.

[[Image:GlobalTemps June2009.jpg|thumb|right|300px|'''8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps.''' Dr. Roy Spencer in June 2009 announced on his [http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/07/june-2009-global-temperature-anomaly-update-000-deg-c/ blog] that June's anomaly globally using the Aqua satellite dropped to 0.001C. '''This continued downtrend started after 2001''', and is another indicator [[Global Warming]] alarmists have certainly embodied a hoax. It was also reported: '''Sea Level Rise; A Major Non-existent Threat Exploited by Alarmists:''' Truth about sea level is a major casualty of the war to implement whatever is deemed necessary to implement legislation to increase [[Big government|Big Government]] power and control, including [[Socialist]] [[Income redistribution]] ideologies. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12629 ''Canada Free Press''] - http://www.climatedepot.com/]]

====Hockey Stick Graph====
In one Climategate [[e-mail]] dated November 1999, CRU chief P.D. Jones wrote to [[Michael Mann]], Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes:
{{cquote|I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to '''hide the decline'''.<ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html UN Climate Reports: They Lie], ''American Thinker'', October 05, 2009.</ref>}}

Michael Mann's [[hockey stick graph]] hid the real declining temperatures and instead showed a [[warming trend]].<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/ Historical video perspective: global warming in the context of scale], ''WUWT'', December 12, 2009.</ref> Mann's graph portrayed temperatures as steadily declining since [[Medieval Warm Period|medieval times]] and then sharply rising in the last century and a half. Notably, his reconstruction fueled claims that 1998 and following years had the highest temperatures in 1,000 years. Once it became publicly known that man-made global warming is a hoax, as a direct result of the e-mail discussing a "trick" for adding data to each temperature series for the last 20 years, Climategate motivated the making of a video called, "Hide The Decline."<ref>Derek Erwin. [http://derekerwin.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate-video-hide-decline.html Video of the Year: 'Hide The Decline' - Climategate], ''A 1-In-100 Blogger'', November 27, 2009.</ref>

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

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


====Videos on Hockey Stick Graph====

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data], the “unprecedented” temperatures of the present day when put in perspective of geologic time.
* ''Hi-Definition'': [http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif Historical perspective slide show (.GIF)], “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale.
* ''Low-res'': [http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif Historical perspective slide show (.GIF)], “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale.


===Climategate Fraud===
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rain forest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland. However, Climategate forced the United Nations climate watchdog to admit intentionally publishing false claims; the IPCC claims about melting ice in the [[Alps]], the [[Andes]], and in [[Africa]] did not come from [[peer review|peer reviewed]] scientific literature—but from ''Climbing Magazine'', and from a student dissertation—written by a [[climate change]] [[activist]] who was studying for a degree in [[Geography]].<ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/35784/ Exclusive: Yet another climategate?], ''The Glenn Beck Program'', February 1, 2010.</ref> The IPCC claims that global warming might wipe out 40% of the [[Amazon River|Amazon]] [[Forest|rainforest]] was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.<ref>Jonathan Leake. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim], ''[[The Sunday Times]]'', January 31, 2010.</ref><ref>Richard Gray. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article], Telegraph.co.uk, January 30, 2010.</ref>

In another crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement, [[Greenpeace]] leader [[Gerd Leipold]] admitted that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that [[Arctic]] [[ice]] would disappear completely by 2030.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/greenpeace-leader-admits-organization-put-out-fake-global-warming-data/ Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data], ''Info Wars'', August 20, 2009.</ref> Despite the admission that a panel report warning [[Himalayan]] [[glaciers]] could be gone by 2035 was hundreds of years off, and regardless of the fraud, deceit and lies the Greenpeace organization spread about global warming, Gerd Leipold said he would not resign.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583711,00.html U.N. Climate Change Expert Cites More Errors in Report], ''[[Fox News]]'', January 25, 2010.</ref>

==Climategate Emails==
The Climategate emails discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure dissenting papers had no access to publication. The Climategate emails show that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money, deliberately falsified data then used the results of the falsification to obtain additional research funding. The collection of data and data processing programs, code from the CRU shows proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref>Steve Gilbert. [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/some-summaries-of-the-cru-emails A Few Summaries Of Some ‘CRU Emails’], ''Sweetness & Light'', November 22, 2009.</ref>

===Themes===
On the climate science environmental agenda and the scandal that Climategate revealed all together, [[Glenn Beck]] commented on the [[e-mail|emails]]:
{{cquote|[The scientists] were asking each other to delete messages to avoid [[Freedom of Information Act]] requests. That doesn't sound legal. Scientists are working together to try and change the definition of [[peer review]] journals so that anybody who said global warming wasn't real couldn't get their papers published. ... [And then with] these thousands of E-mails ... Shouldn't this be - oh, I don't know - everywhere now? All of them are, to varying degrees, important. But how much could any of those actually cost you? This scandal will literally cost you trillions of dollars. That's what's at stake worldwide. It's on how we deal with the climate.<ref name=nbstaff>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/11/24/glenn-beck-cites-newsbusters-bash-tvs-climategate-boycott Glenn Beck Cites NewsBusters to Bash TV's ClimateGate Boycott], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>}}

According to [[Rush Limbaugh]], another theme of the e-mails that have been released is how people at the Climatic Research Unit were constantly trying to "shake down" the oil companies (ie. Exxon, Shell) for [[money]] and for partnerships.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/ Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support], ''WUWT'', December 04, 2009.</ref> On this reoccurring theme, Limbaugh mentioned the following:
{{cquote|They talk about it openly, how they're constantly trying to shake down the oil companies. The only thing man-made about global warming is the theory behind it. What you are going to do with people who are even willing to lie about the weather?<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125111.guest.html It's Not a Consensus, It's a Cabal], RushLimbaugh.com, November 30, 2009.</ref>}}

===IPCC and the CRU's 'Trick'===
Further analysis of the word "trick" and how it was used in the Climategate emails from the CRU provided interesting feedback. It showed that CRU did indeed truncate tree ring data, so that the real decline in global temperature is not shown in the [[IPCC]] report, as referenced by Steve McIntyre.<ref>Steve McIntyre. [http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#more-9483 IPCC and the “Trick”], climateaudit.org, December 10, 2009.</ref> McIntyre brought this to attention as an expert reviewer in the IPCC process in 2005, but at the time of inquiry his dissent was stifled and the discussion was never presented to external peer reviewers.

The explanation for the use of the word "trick" came quickly from CRU director Dr. Phil Jones in his official announcement on November 23rd. He claimed, "The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward." If Dr. Jones used such colloquialisms regularly, it stood to reason that further analysis should find a number of similar instances of the word "trick" in the CRU Climategate emails over the decade that the emails spanned. A file search program with a simple mission to scan the email folders for all file content with instances of the word "trick" used by itself (excluding other words like "Patrick" that would have "trick" embedded in it) returned eight files with that condition:<ref name=trickcount>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/counting-cru-tricks/ Counting CRU “tricks”], ''WUWT'', December 10, 2009.</ref>


* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=12&filename=843161829.txt 0843161829.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt 0942777075.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=365&filename=1065206624.txt 1065206624.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=366&filename=1065636937.txt 1065636937.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=454&filename=1103236623.txt 1103236623.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=796&filename=1179416790.txt 1179416790.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=812&filename=1188508827.txt 1188508827.txt]
* [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=852&filename=1200162026.txt 1200162026.txt]


After a second file search was executed to double check how many of the Climategate emails contained some permutation of the letters "t r i c k," it revealed 29 emails out of the 1079 emails in the [http://junkscience.com/FOIA/ FOIA2009.zip] file. Only one instance was found where Dr. Jones used the word "trick" in reference to a procedure on data. There are other uses and variations of the word "trick" in other emails, but only one instance attributed to Jones where he refers to this data issue. As Dr. Jones put it: The word ‘trick’ was used in the lone instance colloquially as in a clever thing to do (eg. "that’ll do the trick"). But it was questioned that one would expect to see it in general use by Dr. Jones in other emails if it was indeed a colloquialism. In the thousand plus Climategate emails, there’s no other use of the word "trick" by Dr. Jones related to data truncation or otherwise, though there are other colloquial uses of the word by other authors.<ref name=trickcount/>

===Wikipedia===
Lawrence Solomon from the ''[[National Post]]'' discovered from the Climategate emails how a small band of [[climatologists]] plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the [[Medieval Warm Period]].<ref>[http://www.climate-gate.org/search.php?keyword=Wikipedia&submit=Search Search - Wikipedia], climate-gate.org, Climategate Document Database.</ref> The Climategate emails revealed the enlistment of [[Wikipedia]] in their attempt at rewriting history. It was revealed how Wikipedia’s "green doctor," a U.K. scientist and [[Green Party]] activist, rewrote 5,428 climate articles. The recruited [[Wikipedia]] administrator, William Connolley, literally rewrote history and then abused his administrative privileges to stifle criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/ Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes Wikipedia climate information], ''WUWT'', December 19, 2009.</ref> Lawrence Solomon wrote on this revelation and on Wikipedia's loss of [[integrity]] as a source of factual information, and on the clear abuse of power from administrative authorities within Wikipedia:
{{cquote|Starting in February 2003, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period. All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.<ref>Lawrence Solomon. [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor], ''[[National Post]]'', December 19, 2009.</ref>}}

==Global Reactions to Climategate==
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="350" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: lightblue no-repeat scroll top left;"|Climategate Scandal Spreads Worldwide
|-
! Nation!!Involvement in corruption of climate science
|- valign="center"
| [[File:50 star flag.png|50px]]||[[Pennsylvania State University|Penn State]] is investigating [[Michael Mann]] for his role in Climategate. [[Barack Obama]] is "doubling down" on his commitment to combat fake Global warming; the [[Obama administration]] dumps [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/12/17/2009-12-17_us_will_contribute_to_100b_climate_fund_for_developing_countries_hillary_clinton.html more U.S. taxpayer dollars] into a global $100 billion [[European Union]] climate change fund.
|-
| [[File:Flag of Australia.png|50px]]||Liberal Party members within [[Australia|Australia’s]] parliament resigned rather than voted for a cap and trade scheme based on flawed science.
|-
| [[File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.png|50px]]||[[Saudi Arabia]] called for an independent investigation into Climategate.
|-
| [[File:Flag of New Zealand.png|50px]]||The centerpiece of New Zealand's ''National Institute of Water & Atmospheric'' research temperature claims are proven false: [http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf PDF]
|-
| [[File:Union jack.jpg|50px]]||The [[UK|UK's]] CRU director Phil Jones stepped down.
|-
| [[File:Flag of Russia.png|50px]]||[[Russia]] admitted the [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html CRU emails were uploaded on a Siberian Internet server] and denied involved, but [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/ "confirmed" that UK climate scientists manipulated data] to exaggerate global warming.
|-
|}

===Copenhagen===
[[Sarah Palin]] called for President Obama to skip [[Copenhagen]], the climate summit in [[Denmark]], because of the information Climategate exposed. She commented on [[Facebook]] that the president should reconsider his trip until the e-mails can be investigated, "Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the [[United States]] government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices."<ref name=obamacopenhagen>Wendell Goler. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/05/obama-s-shift-copenhagen-visit-defies-climate-gate-controversy/ Obama Ignores 'Climate-Gate' in Revising Copenhagen Plans], FOXNews.com, December 5, 2009.</ref> Instead, the [[The White House|White House]] attempted to downplay the controversial leaked e-mails of climate scientists. [[President Obama]] announced that he was "doubling down" on his commitment to the worldwide environmental agenda, pushing forward with a [[cap and trade]] scheme that is based on flawed science, and hoping to secure a "meaningful" agreement. The President made it clear that he will invest more energy and taxpayer dollars to help advance the global warming hoax.

Originally, the [[President of the United States of America|President]] was supposed to attend the U.N. Climate Conference in Copenhagen for the beginning of the conference, "bless the occasion and leave," said Roger Simon of ''[[Pajamas Media]]''. After Climategate became known, ''Pajamas Media'' reported that President Obama, "[S]witched his itinerary to be there at the end of the two weeks in order to give his blessing and impetus to the decision itself."<ref>Roger L. Simon. [http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/12/06/climategate-why-obama-switched-his-copenhagen-itinerary/ Climategate: Why Obama switched his Copenhagen itinerary], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', December 06, 2009.</ref>

===Obama Administration===
In a case of see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, the Obama administration showed commitment to [[climate change]] legislation and at the same time dismissive of Climategate. Though evidence revealed from the e-mail messages from the CRU shows that researchers manipulated data, suppressed data and stifled dissent, [[John Holdren]], Obama's science czar who is directly involved in the Climategate scandal stated boldly, "The science is proper and this is about a small fraction of research on the issue."<ref>Dr. Tim Ball, Judi McLeod. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183 Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal], ''Canada Free Press'', November 24, 2009.</ref><ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/24/science-czar-john-holdren-and-climategate-perfect-together/ Science czar John Holdren and ClimateGate: Perfect together], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 24, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/02/white-house-science-officials-defend-climate-change-data-amid-e-mail-scandal/ White House Science Officials Defend Climate Change Data Amid E-Mail Scandal], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref> The [[reality]] is that this small 'fraction of research' — the theory which is the foundation of [[Anthropogenic global warming theory|anthropogenic global warming]] — the data used by CRU scientists, it is proven fraudulent. The [[theory]] which used to hold human beings responsible: it is nothing more than a Global warming scam, according to Jim O'Neill from the ''Canada Free Press''.<ref>Jim O'Neill. [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17361 Attention Lawyers! Make Millions Off Of Climategate Crooks!], ''Canada Free Press'', November 30, 2009 .</ref> The scientists at the CRU, from the evidence found in their e-mails and documents, show a criminal intent to defraud the public of massive amounts of money, and at the same time advance an ideological [[Leftist]] agenda.<ref>Christopher Monckton. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/ Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)], ''[[Pajamas Media]]'', November 23, 2009.</ref>

===U.S. Congressional Comments===
When House [[Republicans]] asked for a hearing or investigation into the Climategate scandal, independent from the Penn State University which is looking into the Climategate emails by its own researcher, [[Michael Mann]], calls for further investigation were criticized and then rejected by [[Democrats]]. U.S. Representative James Sensenbrenner ([[Republican|R]]-[[Wisconsin]]) said, "These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit."<ref>Seth Borenstein. [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010411091_apsciclimatehearing.html Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails], ''The Seattle Times'', December 3, 2009.</ref> Democrats harbored ill will against the facts and continued to theorize that the [[earth]] is warming, insisting that the fraudulent data "[does] nothing to undermine the very strong scientific [[consensus]]," which showed a [[warming trend]] and claimed it is largely a result of human activity. The top [[Democrat]] on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, [[Barbara Boxer]], a global warming alarmist, said of the scandal, "You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate." Rather than investigate the fraud and manipulation of scientific data that was used by climate science researchers, Boxer hoped to get her hands on the so-called 'real' criminals, those who released e-mails and data to the public.<ref>[http://polijamblog.polijam.com/?p=11748 Sen. Boxer Attempts to Turn Climategate Into ‘Email-Theft-Gate’ as Warmist Scandal Grows], ''The PoliJAM Times Blog'', December 2, 2009.</ref>

===Other Countries Take Notice===
While U.S. [[Democrats|Democratic]] politicians downplayed the Climategate controversy, and despite the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scoffing at Climategate by suggesting it provided no basis for questioning the science behind global warming, global reactions from other countries around the world took notice of the scandal. [[Saudi Arabia]] called for an independent investigation into Climategate, warning that the scandal over stolen e-mails threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations. "The level of confidence is certainty shaken," said the Saudi Arabian negotiator. "We believe this scandal — or what has been referred to as the ‘Climategate’ scandal — we think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations."<ref>Lisa Lerer. [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30291.html Saudi Arabia calls for 'climategate' investigation], ''[[Politico]]'', December 07, 2009.</ref> Elsewhere, [[Australia]] had planned on setting an example to lead in the fight on climate change, to become one of the first countries to install a [[cap and trade]] system. However, due to an "emissions trading scheme" Climategate revealed, [[Liberal Party]] members within Australia’s parliament realized that cap and trade is based on flawed science. Liberal MP’s resigned their portfolios rather than voted for a cap and trade scheme.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/ripples-of-climategate-being-felt-worldwide-liberal-mps-desert-turnbull-in-australia-over-emissions-trading-scheme/ Ripples of Climategate? Liberal MP’s desert Turnbull in Australia over emissions trading scheme], ''WUWT'', November 25, 2009.</ref>

[[File:GlobalWarmingLie.jpg|right|200px]]

==Climategate Media Coverage==
The Climategate media coverage refers to the journalistic methods used by the the Mainstream media to deceive the public from learning more specific details about the fraudulent climate data. In the wake of the Climategate scandal, a truly bizarre situation happened; the [[Mainstream media|mainstream media]] stories about global warming pretended the uncovered documents never happened. This worldwide Climategate cover-up also occurred before the public had learned about Climategate, too. The [[U.K.]] ''[[Daily Mail]]'' pointed out that, a month prior to November 19, 2009, the first unreported instance where political ideology reigned over journalistic duties happened over at BBC News:
{{cquote|The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud.<ref name=bbclie>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html BBC weatherman ‘ignored’ leaked climate row emails], [[Daily Mail|dailymail.co.uk]], November 28, 2009.</ref>}}

Climategate coverage of the scandal is a [[media]]-focused overview from the most notable discussions covering Climategate: the revealed data, e-mails and manipulated code sets. As details emerged from the Climategate scandal, Climatic Research Unit scientists at the University of East Anglia were exposed. Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on climate science, the leftist media ignored it, and then focused on pushing forward with the [[global warming]] [[hoax]].<ref name=climatehoax>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120809/content/01125110.guest.html Hoax: Climate Change Makes Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism], RushLimbaugh.com, December 8, 2009.</ref> Coverage of Climategate showed just how [[bias]] the [[liberal media]] has become in order to advance an environmental agenda.

As Climategate was totally ignored by most TV news outlets, ''[[Fox News]]'' appeared to be the only national news media in [[United States|America]] interested in the growing scandal.<ref>John Lott. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/john-lott-climate-change-emails-copenhagen/ Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate'], FOXNews.com, November 24, 2009.</ref><ref name=accuracyinmedia/> Perhaps the [[MSM]] felt that by ignoring Climategate entirely that it would have just gone away. However, just as the case was during the [[Tea Party Movement]], notably during the [[Tax Day Tea Party]], [[blog|bloggers]] and the readers of the global warming stories kept bringing up [[An Inconvenient Truth|the inconvenient truth]] of Climategate by mentioning the scandal "over and over and over again."<ref>P.J. Gladnick. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/24/climategate-msm-writers-try-ignore-scandal-global-warming-stories-read Climategate: MSM Writers Try to Ignore Scandal in Global Warming Stories But Readers Bring Them Back to Reality], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>

[[File:GlobalWarmingFraud Newsbusters.jpg|left|200px]]

===Global Warming Hoax===
On December 08, the second day of [[Copenhagen]], news from the ''UK Telegraph'' headlined a Global warming hoax, "Starving Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism."
{{cquote|New pictures show that polar bears are beginning to cannibalize each other as global warming destroys its hunting grounds. The images, taken in Hudson Bay, Canada, around 200 miles north of the town of Churchill, Manitoba, show a male polar bear carrying the bloodied head of a polar bear cub it has killed for food. Polar bears usually subsist on seals, which they hunt from a platform of sea ice. But the melting of sea ice as a result of rising global temperatures has made it more difficult for polar bears to hunt seals at sea.<ref>Jonathan Liew. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6760103/Starving-polar-bears-turn-to-cannibalism.html Starving polar bears turn to cannibalism], Telegraph.co.uk, December 08, 2009.</ref>}}

[[Rush Limbaugh]] blasted the Global Warming hoax and commented, "None of this is true" (Dyck, M.G., 2007).<ref>Dyck, M.G. et al., Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the ‘‘ultimate’’ survival control factor?, Ecol. Complex. (2007), doi:[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002 10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002]</ref> He rebuked the false claims about [[polar bears]] and at the same time pointed out the continuation of fraudulent stories from the media despite Climategate; Limbaugh revealed another hoax blaming a natural event on global warming.
{{cquote|If you know anything about polar bears, you know that there are any number of reasons why polar bears attack each other. But did you know that polar bear males are well known for eating their young if given half a chance? They do. The mother, the female polar bear has to protect the cubs from the father and other males. Polar bears are a vicious species. They're not this cuddly little old English sheepdog type thing. People go out on ice floes to study these things, and if they attack they have to shoot them. They're not at all in any way tame, and they're huge. They can rip you to shreds inside of five seconds, they wouldn't care, and Reuters would run a picture and blame it all on global warming, not the fact that a polar bear is a polar bear. Polar bears eat their young, if given half the chance, males do. So another hoax, 100% total fraud on the second day of Copenhagen.<ref name=climatehoax/>}}

==Climategate Cover-up==
Fourteen days after the story broke worldwide, the Climategate scandal had been mentioned by [[ABC]], [[CBS]] and [[NBC]] a total of '''''zero''''' times. Because the story affects [[Cap and trade]] legislation, the [[White House]], in their daily collusion with [[liberal media]] sources, may have told news channels to bury the story.<ref>Diane Macedo. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html Comedy Central Scoops Network News on Climate-Gate Scandal], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 02, 2009.</ref> From ''NewsBusters'', it was reported that [[Glenn Beck]] used the news source to, "Demonstrate that much as in [the mainstream media's] boycott of the [[ACORN]] scandal and green jobs czar [[Van Jones|Van Jones's]] peculiar associations, the television press are once again hiding important information from the public hoping it will all just go away."<ref name=nbstaff>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/11/24/glenn-beck-cites-newsbusters-bash-tvs-climategate-boycott Glenn Beck Cites NewsBusters to Bash TV's ClimateGate Boycott], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txh_BXdeWBU ClimateGate... What??], Glen Beck on ClimateGate censorship.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upkO0j3fN9A ClimateGate], Glenn Beck on ClimateGate scandal.

===Unreported and Censored===
[[File:Leftist News.gif | right]]
The liberal [[Wikipedia]] has cited various references to contend against the facts uncovered with Climategate and has claimed that the e-mail files were illegally stolen by computer hackers, despite repeated requests for the data files under the [[FOIA]]. Though unreported by the [[MSM]] and at the same time [[censorship|censored]] by liberal Wikipedia, there is strong evidence to suggest the data was released by a fellow employee, a "whistle blower" within the Climatic Research Unit.<ref>[http://www.junkscience.com Those <s>"hacked"</s> released CRU files], JunkScience.com, December 03, 2009.</ref>

* There was no "security breach" at CRU that "stole" these files
* The files appear genuine and to have been prepared by CRU staff, not edited by malicious hackers
* The information was accidentally or deliberately released by CRU staff
* Selection criteria appears to be compliance with an or several FOIA request(s)

The [[U.K.]] ''Daily Mail'' pointed out the following:
{{cquote|The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud.<ref name=bbclie/>}}

===Liberal Media Missed the Mark===
The first liberal media source to openly discuss Climategate on [[United States|American]] [[television]] was during a segment on [[Comedy Central|Comedy Central's]] ''[[The Daily Show]]'' with [[Jon Stewart]], a slapstick entertainment news program. After more than two weeks had passed since Climategate went public, CBS evening news finally reported on the scandal. However, CBS missed the mark and called the scandal by its [[Google]] created name: "Climate Gate" — and then CBS provided a weird subtitle in their news article that said, "Leaked E-Mails Provide Climate Change Deniers Ammunition Near Beginning of Global Summit."<ref>Kimberly Dozier. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/05/eveningnews/main5908487.shtml "Climate Gate" Casts Cloud on Change Meet], ''[[CBS News]]'', December 5, 2009.</ref> ''[[CBS News]]'' also aired a short video of an interview with Kevin Trenberth. Dr. Trenberth in the past has said this in one of the CRU e-mails:
{{cquote|The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/cbs-finally-reports-on-climategate-dr-trenberth-interviewed/ CBS finally reports on Climategate: Dr. Trenberth interviewed], ''WUWT'', December 06, 2009.</ref>}}

===Googlegate===
[[File:Gore firegloablawarminghoax.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Al Gore]] demonstrating how his ability to spout fire is somehow proof of his silly 'global warming is man-made' fraud.]]
It was reported that, despite Climategate related pages being the most-read articles of the UK's ''Telegraph'' entire online operation, mysteriously when attempting to search using [[Google]] – it didn't feature links related to Climategate.<ref>Anthony Watts. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/climategate-surpasses-global-warming-on-google-autosuggest-still-blocked/ “Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google], ''Watts Up With That?'', November 28, 2009.</ref> James Delingpole from the ''Telegraph'' noted, "Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me."<ref>James Delingpole. [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018263/climategate-googlegate/ Climategate: Googlegate?], ''Telegraph Blogs'', November 29th, 2009.</ref> Google.com has been accused before of interfering with its own search [[algorithm|algorithms]] in order to interfere with searches for material deemed "[[Politically correct|not politically correct]]."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d29-Google-blocking-climategate-autosuggestion Google blocking 'climategate' autosuggestion], examiner.com, November 29, 2009.</ref><ref>Danny Sullivan. [http://searchengineland.com/of-climategate-googlegate-when-stories-get-too-long-30755 Of Climategate, Googlegate & When Stories Get Too Long], ''search engine land'', December 01, 2009.</ref> Through December 3rd, despite the rising search popularity for the query "Climategate," or "Climategate scandal," and attempted "Climate-Gate" keywords from about 26,400,000 articles on the [[World Wide Web|Web]], Google’s "autosuggestion" function in the search box was not suggesting "climategate." But rather, instead, Google and other search engines also began to suggest to Web searchers if they meant to search for "Climate Gate" rather than the intended query, "Climategate" or otherwise "Climategate scandal." However, by December 7th, Google was correctly displaying "climate-gate" in the autosuggest list, which led to a full list of search results about this scandal.

Al Gore's position on Google's senior advisory board is likely bearing responsibility; in Gore's bio he says:
{{cquote|A member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer, Inc. and a Senior Advisor to Google, Inc. Gore is also Visiting Professor at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.<ref>http://www.algore.com/about.html</ref>}}
According to ''[[NewsBusters]]'', [[Al Gore]] has done some "advising" of Google’s search quality in the past.<ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/15/al-gore-advised-google-about-its-search-quality Al Gore Advised Google About 'Search Quality'], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', October 15, 2009.</ref> There is some history between Google and Al Gore that has some bearing on the current situation.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/02/google-trends-on-climategate-show-public-interest-increasing-but-troubling-questions-loom/ Google trends on “climategate” show public interest increasing – but troubling questions loom], ''Watts Up With That?'', December 02, 2009.</ref> In the case of "Climategate," Mr. Gore's ability to continue his current speaking engagements might be hampered. Thus, there could well be a motive for him doing some "advising" in this case. A phone call might be all it took.

==Videos==
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZszGJHbK4 The Stroke Of A Pen], 'Lord Christopher Monckton' closing statement at the Minnesota Free Market Institute.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk 'Hide The Decline'], satire starring Michael Mann.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI 'The Twelve Days of Global Warming'], satire starring Al Gore.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQXY4tWaoI It's A Climategate Christmas], satire on Global warming post-ClimateGate.
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF5F6eYho8U Imagine There's No Global Warming], satire of John Lennon's song "Imagine" turned politically incorrect.
* Global Warming, Or A Lot of Hot Air? ''Fox News'' reporting: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqi7fxERiqk Part 1] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnCLQIYNYgo Part 2] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UisVhZHouq4 Part 3] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Pj6uWTgXM Part 4] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWYuZs6Idb8 Part 5] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BTS3K9DFy0 Part 6]

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==Also See==

* Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, October 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
* Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (November 11, 2008) by Christopher C. Horner ISBN 1596985380


==External Links==
* [http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Watts Up With That?] - Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
* [http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3943/Read-All-About-it-Climate-Depot-Exclusive--Continuously-Updated-ClimateGate-News-Round-Up Climate Depot] - Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round Up
* [http://www.PJTV.com/climategate PJTV Covers Climategate] - Full coverage of how scientists cooked data on climate change
* [http://www.nocapandtrade.com/ ClimateGate] - Facts on climate change
* [http://eastangliaemails.com/ The CRU emails] - East Anglia confirmed emails from the Climatic Research Unit

{{Climategate scandal}}

[[Category: Global Warming]]
[[Category: Earth Sciences]]
[[Category: Ecology]]
[[Category: Science]]
[[Category: Environment]]
[[Category: Environmentalism]]
[[Category: Deceit]]

User talk:LowKey

2009-03-24T01:25:14Z

LowKey: /* Switch to your real first name and last initial */

[[/Archive 1]]

== Switch to your real first name and last initial ==

"Lowkey", I've grown tired of reverting your silly edits, and even more tired of your user id. Either request conversion of your id. to your real first name and last initial and improve your quality, or please move on. Lots of other sites with lower quality would welcome you. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::Andy, I am taking a short-to-medium break while I consider my options. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 17:23, 17 January 2009 (EST)

== Excluded middle edits ==

:And don't make ideological edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Law_of_the_excluded_middle&diff=prev&oldid=611475 this one]. It is only evolutionists who insist that every criticism of evolution is necessarily a "religious" argument - on '''their''' [[excluded middle]] grounds. This is a fallacy, because it leaves out "unknown" causation.

:If life did not emerge because of know physical causes, this doesn't mean a supernatural cause is the only other possibility. They are just using that to have a '''legal''' excuse to suppress criticism of evolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:58, 16 January 2009 (EST)
::Ed, there is not a correct statement in your post. The law of the excluded middle is in invoked by '''creationists''' on '''logical''' grounds. It is not a fallacy, it is a valid logical argument. The options are ''not'' "physical", "supernatural", or "other"; they are "natural and "supernatural", evidence against one origin (natural) are necessarily arguments for the other origin (supernatural). The argument that you present above is the one that ''evolutionists'' actually use to suppress criticism, and the law of the excluded middle is invoked by ''creationists'' to refute the evolutionists. Sorry, but you have it backwards. My edit there was not ideological, but was an example of how the law of the excluded middle is used. Odd how you seem to have assumed I am an evolutionist, when my only non-neutral edits have been anti-evolution and pro-creation. New standard number one in action again, it seems.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 17:23, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:World History Lecture Eight

2009-03-18T00:05:26Z

LowKey: /* Thoughts and comments */

Just thought I would point out that the slave trade is not considered part of the Columbian Exchange. The Columbian exchange, also known as the great biological exchange, dealt with plants, animals, and pathogens. See for example, Alfred Crosby, ''The Columbian Exchange'' (1972)

== Hume ==

There are a number of errors in the "Enlightenment" section, but I'd like to focus on the errors relating to Hume. First of all, presenting Hume as a sceptic towards religion, while absolutely true, is an understatement. Hume was sceptical of ''everything'' beyond experience, even those things (such as continuity and causation) which previous philosophers had taken for granted. Secondly, it is entirely untrue to claim that there were so few great English philosophers, whether that means English speaking or born in England (hopefully it doesn't mean the latter, because Hume was of course Scottish). Hume is considered one of the greatest not because he has so few peers, but because, surprisingly enough, he was a brilliant philosopher. Thirdly the claim that Hume's chief claim to fame is that he influenced Darwin is utterly absurd. His claim to fame is that he gave the finest statement of empiricism and made important criticisms of philosophy's attempts to understand metaphysics. The fact that he influenced Darwin may be important, but is not even well known. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== Corrections ==

The caravel wasn't notable so much for its cargo ability (in the spice trade it was replaced by other, heavier ships) but its speed and manueverability in shallow water.

"Known as the 'reconquista', this was accomplished first through the reconquest of Granada" - the Reconquista had been going on for hundreds of years, it didn't begin with the capture of Granada.

Magellan's voyage didn't lead to ownership of Mexico and Peru. Cortes claimed Mexico for Spain in March 1519. Magellan sailed from Spain in August 1519.

"Giving them a bunch of blankets exposed to the deadly germ" almost certainly is not true for the time period discussed - it implies a knowledge of disease far beyond the 16th century. The few semi-documented cases come from the mid-late 18th century. Disease was the major killer of natives, but not through conscious infection through smallpox.

Philip II reigned from 1556-1598, not 1638-1715. The Dutch Revolt began in 1568. 1579 was the creation of the Union of Utrecht.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 21:51, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:Andy, on the role of the caravel, read CP's [[Caravel]], also [[Nao]] and [[Carrack]] as the vessels used by the Iberian nations in the early Age of Exploration. The caravel did much of the early work, especially down Africa, but its role diminished rapidly as soon as things really got under way.
* Magellan did not round the Horn...he went through the Strait of Magellan. As did Drake later. The Horn (which is actually an island) was to be rounded in early 1616 by an expedition co-led by [[Willem Cornelisz Schouten]] and named after his home town of Hoorn in Holland.
*Ivan the Terrible was tsar, or czar, of Russia (the first to be so) from 1547 until his death in 1584. Until 1547 he was Prince of Muscovy (Moscow) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:21, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Thoughts and comments==

Already I have mentioned [[Magellan]]’s non-rounding of the Horn, and intimated that the [[caravel]] was not as you described, suggesting you check Conservapedia entries for other vessels of the time. I also changed your date of [[Henry the Navigator]]’s founding of his school of navigation. – he was born in that year.
:Also....
*(1) Of the 321 words in “Portuguese Exploration”, 127 are actually on that subject. The other 184 are on Columbus.
*(2) [[Bartholomew Dias|Dias]] didn’t “fail”. His purpose was to find the way to India. That he did. He chose to return. His expedition was not set up to actually “go” to India.
*(3) There’s a complete lack of anything about discovery/trade/colonisation anywhere in the world except the Americas; apart from one mention of the Philippines, and Dias and Da Gama’s first voyage. Where are the Dutch? – for most of the 17th century they were the most successful traders on earth and controlled most of the spice trade – which, remember, was the main reason for the voyages of discovery to start off with. What mention of the discovery of Australia? The founding of Cape Colony? Those two great examples of capitalism, the Dutch and English East India Companies?
*(4) Where’s the English Civil War? Cromwell et al.
*(5) ''”Commercial competition between European nations in North America culminated in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763)”'' is just a tad parochial. Actually the Seven Years War was a teeny bit bigger than that. In Europe, it was fought over possession of Silesia by Prussia and Austria. France, Russia, Sweden, Poland sided with Austria; Britain with Prussia. The conflict in Europe contained about 20 major battles in each of which at least 40,000 troops took part with total battle losses of well over 200,000 men. That does not include smaller engagements, sieges, the sacking of towns and villages and pillaging of the countryside, major sea battles ( Lagos, Quiberon Bay) and so on. (It is estimated over a million people died as a result of the conflict in Europe). Because Britain and France were already at each others’ throats unofficially in various parts of the world (including the aptly named French and Indian Wars) there were also major engagements between Britain and France in India, and the West Indies. Late in the war Spain and Portugal set to it in South America. It reached every inhabited continent except Australia (the discovery of which in the early 1600s doesn’t seem to matter, I notice.)
:I am not at all minimising the importance of the F and I War – it had an enormous impact – it gave Canada to Britain and in a way opened the door for the American Revolution a few years later. But the Seven Years War also gave Britain control of India, which is not exactly trifling; and the [[Battle of Quiberon Bay]] off Brittany in 1759 equals [[Trafalgar]] in importance.
:To say that the Seven Years’ War was about “commercial competition between European nations in North America” is a bit like saying World War II started with Pearl Harbor. (And I have met Americans who thought it did.) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:39, 12 March 2009 (EDT)00:38, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
::One other thing....English. Phonetic? How does that gell with the infamous "''ough''" words. You know, "cough", "through" "burough", 'rough", etc? Not to mention "veer"' "mere", "pier" "ear" and so on. I love English. I wallow in it. I carry volumes of Shakespeare around in my back pocket. But I would never call it phonetically easy. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:14, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
::: Yes, I'd agree on that. There are some languages (such as Italian) where you can teach someone the pronunciation rules and then they can correctly read aloud anything written in that language without understanding it. In English, if you see the word "moped", you don't even know how many syllables it has until you know (by understanding and by context) if it's a noun or a verb. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 05:04, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: English has some bothersome exceptions to phonetic pronunciation, but there's no denying that the language is largely phonetic. Indeed, phonics is proven to be the best way to learn it.

:::: I'll review the other comments above and incorporate in to the lecture as appropriate. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:48, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: You're welcome. English (as I think I said in my revised version) does have a large phonetic element, but less so than many (most?) other languages that use sound-based written elements. Italian or Hebrew or Arabic or Russian is pretty close to perfectly phonetic, which I think is what is meant by describing a language as phonetic. Personally I'm a great lover of puns and wordplay, so I'm quite happy by all the irregularity. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 13:31, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::: The larger language (in terms of usage) of Chinese is not phonetic. Also, I'm surprised to hear you claim that Hebrew is phonetic. It traditionally lacked vowels!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:47, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

(outdent) Denise, "sound-based written elements" = phonetic, rather than characters representing ideas (as they do in Chinese). In this sense English is phonetic - although I think there is a specific linguistic word for this; phonograms as opposed to ideograms ? :) . Even though a character (or sequence) may represent ultiple sounds depending on context (and which language it was adapted from), it still stands for sounds. A phonetic written language is not the same as a phonetically consistent lexicon. In this sense any language not written in ideograms is phonetic. If I read it correctly, Andy was simply saying that as a phonetic (characters = sounds) language, English has advantages over ideogrammatic languages. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:58, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:World History Lecture Eight

2009-03-17T23:58:49Z

LowKey: /* Thoughts and comments */

Just thought I would point out that the slave trade is not considered part of the Columbian Exchange. The Columbian exchange, also known as the great biological exchange, dealt with plants, animals, and pathogens. See for example, Alfred Crosby, ''The Columbian Exchange'' (1972)

== Hume ==

There are a number of errors in the "Enlightenment" section, but I'd like to focus on the errors relating to Hume. First of all, presenting Hume as a sceptic towards religion, while absolutely true, is an understatement. Hume was sceptical of ''everything'' beyond experience, even those things (such as continuity and causation) which previous philosophers had taken for granted. Secondly, it is entirely untrue to claim that there were so few great English philosophers, whether that means English speaking or born in England (hopefully it doesn't mean the latter, because Hume was of course Scottish). Hume is considered one of the greatest not because he has so few peers, but because, surprisingly enough, he was a brilliant philosopher. Thirdly the claim that Hume's chief claim to fame is that he influenced Darwin is utterly absurd. His claim to fame is that he gave the finest statement of empiricism and made important criticisms of philosophy's attempts to understand metaphysics. The fact that he influenced Darwin may be important, but is not even well known. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== Corrections ==

The caravel wasn't notable so much for its cargo ability (in the spice trade it was replaced by other, heavier ships) but its speed and manueverability in shallow water.

"Known as the 'reconquista', this was accomplished first through the reconquest of Granada" - the Reconquista had been going on for hundreds of years, it didn't begin with the capture of Granada.

Magellan's voyage didn't lead to ownership of Mexico and Peru. Cortes claimed Mexico for Spain in March 1519. Magellan sailed from Spain in August 1519.

"Giving them a bunch of blankets exposed to the deadly germ" almost certainly is not true for the time period discussed - it implies a knowledge of disease far beyond the 16th century. The few semi-documented cases come from the mid-late 18th century. Disease was the major killer of natives, but not through conscious infection through smallpox.

Philip II reigned from 1556-1598, not 1638-1715. The Dutch Revolt began in 1568. 1579 was the creation of the Union of Utrecht.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 21:51, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:Andy, on the role of the caravel, read CP's [[Caravel]], also [[Nao]] and [[Carrack]] as the vessels used by the Iberian nations in the early Age of Exploration. The caravel did much of the early work, especially down Africa, but its role diminished rapidly as soon as things really got under way.
* Magellan did not round the Horn...he went through the Strait of Magellan. As did Drake later. The Horn (which is actually an island) was to be rounded in early 1616 by an expedition co-led by [[Willem Cornelisz Schouten]] and named after his home town of Hoorn in Holland.
*Ivan the Terrible was tsar, or czar, of Russia (the first to be so) from 1547 until his death in 1584. Until 1547 he was Prince of Muscovy (Moscow) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:21, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Thoughts and comments==

Already I have mentioned [[Magellan]]’s non-rounding of the Horn, and intimated that the [[caravel]] was not as you described, suggesting you check Conservapedia entries for other vessels of the time. I also changed your date of [[Henry the Navigator]]’s founding of his school of navigation. – he was born in that year.
:Also....
*(1) Of the 321 words in “Portuguese Exploration”, 127 are actually on that subject. The other 184 are on Columbus.
*(2) [[Bartholomew Dias|Dias]] didn’t “fail”. His purpose was to find the way to India. That he did. He chose to return. His expedition was not set up to actually “go” to India.
*(3) There’s a complete lack of anything about discovery/trade/colonisation anywhere in the world except the Americas; apart from one mention of the Philippines, and Dias and Da Gama’s first voyage. Where are the Dutch? – for most of the 17th century they were the most successful traders on earth and controlled most of the spice trade – which, remember, was the main reason for the voyages of discovery to start off with. What mention of the discovery of Australia? The founding of Cape Colony? Those two great examples of capitalism, the Dutch and English East India Companies?
*(4) Where’s the English Civil War? Cromwell et al.
*(5) ''”Commercial competition between European nations in North America culminated in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763)”'' is just a tad parochial. Actually the Seven Years War was a teeny bit bigger than that. In Europe, it was fought over possession of Silesia by Prussia and Austria. France, Russia, Sweden, Poland sided with Austria; Britain with Prussia. The conflict in Europe contained about 20 major battles in each of which at least 40,000 troops took part with total battle losses of well over 200,000 men. That does not include smaller engagements, sieges, the sacking of towns and villages and pillaging of the countryside, major sea battles ( Lagos, Quiberon Bay) and so on. (It is estimated over a million people died as a result of the conflict in Europe). Because Britain and France were already at each others’ throats unofficially in various parts of the world (including the aptly named French and Indian Wars) there were also major engagements between Britain and France in India, and the West Indies. Late in the war Spain and Portugal set to it in South America. It reached every inhabited continent except Australia (the discovery of which in the early 1600s doesn’t seem to matter, I notice.)
:I am not at all minimising the importance of the F and I War – it had an enormous impact – it gave Canada to Britain and in a way opened the door for the American Revolution a few years later. But the Seven Years War also gave Britain control of India, which is not exactly trifling; and the [[Battle of Quiberon Bay]] off Brittany in 1759 equals [[Trafalgar]] in importance.
:To say that the Seven Years’ War was about “commercial competition between European nations in North America” is a bit like saying World War II started with Pearl Harbor. (And I have met Americans who thought it did.) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:39, 12 March 2009 (EDT)00:38, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
::One other thing....English. Phonetic? How does that gell with the infamous "''ough''" words. You know, "cough", "through" "burough", 'rough", etc? Not to mention "veer"' "mere", "pier" "ear" and so on. I love English. I wallow in it. I carry volumes of Shakespeare around in my back pocket. But I would never call it phonetically easy. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:14, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
::: Yes, I'd agree on that. There are some languages (such as Italian) where you can teach someone the pronunciation rules and then they can correctly read aloud anything written in that language without understanding it. In English, if you see the word "moped", you don't even know how many syllables it has until you know (by understanding and by context) if it's a noun or a verb. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 05:04, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: English has some bothersome exceptions to phonetic pronunciation, but there's no denying that the language is largely phonetic. Indeed, phonics is proven to be the best way to learn it.

:::: I'll review the other comments above and incorporate in to the lecture as appropriate. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:48, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: You're welcome. English (as I think I said in my revised version) does have a large phonetic element, but less so than many (most?) other languages that use sound-based written elements. Italian or Hebrew or Arabic or Russian is pretty close to perfectly phonetic, which I think is what is meant by describing a language as phonetic. Personally I'm a great lover of puns and wordplay, so I'm quite happy by all the irregularity. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 13:31, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::: The larger language (in terms of usage) of Chinese is not phonetic. Also, I'm surprised to hear you claim that Hebrew is phonetic. It traditionally lacked vowels!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:47, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

(outdent) Denise, "sound-based written elements" = phonetic, rather than character representing ideas (as they do in Chinese)? In this sense English is phonetic - although I think there is a specific linguistic word for this; phonograms as opposed to ideograms ? :) . Even though a character (or sequence) may represent ultiple sounds depending on context (and which language it was adapted from), it still stands for sounds. A phonetic written language is not the same as a phonetically consistent lexicon. In this sense any language not written in ideograms is phonetic.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:58, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

User talk:LowKey

2009-01-19T02:41:55Z

LowKey: Archiving preparatory to break.

[[/Archive 1]]

== Switch to your real first name and last initial ==

"Lowkey", I've grown tired of reverting your silly edits, and even more tired of your user id. Either request conversion of your id. to your real first name and last initial and improve your quality, or please move on. Lots of other sites with lower quality would welcome you. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::Andy, I am taking a short-to-medium break while I consider my options. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 17:23, 17 January 2009 (EST)

:And don't make ideological edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Law_of_the_excluded_middle&diff=prev&oldid=611475 this one]. It is only evolutionists who insist that every criticism of evolution is necessarily a "religious" argument - on '''their''' [[excluded middle]] grounds. This is a fallacy, because it leaves out "unknown" causation.

:If life did not emerge because of know physical causes, this doesn't mean a supernatural cause is the only other possibility. They are just using that to have a '''legal''' excuse to suppress criticism of evolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:58, 16 January 2009 (EST)
::Ed, there is not a correct statement in your post. The law of the excluded middle is in invoked by '''creationists''' on '''logical''' grounds. It is not a fallacy, it is a valid logical argument. The options are ''not'' "physical", "supernatural", or "other"; they are "natural and "supernatural", evidence against one origin (natural) are necessarily arguments for the other origin (supernatural). The argument that you present above is the one that ''evolutionists'' actually use to suppress criticism, and the law of the excluded middle is invoked by ''creationists'' to refute the evolutionists. Sorry, but you have it backwards. My edit there was not ideological, but was an example of how the law of the excluded middle is used. Odd how you seem to have assumed I am an evolutionist, when my only non-neutral edits have been anti-evolution and pro-creation. New standard number one in action again, it seems.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 17:23, 17 January 2009 (EST)

User talk:LowKey

2009-01-19T02:21:28Z

LowKey: /* Switch to your real first name and last initial */ fix some basic formatting and a typographical omission.

<big>Hello, I am LowKey.</big>

I don't have too much to say at the moment. I will probably mostly read articles and talk pages before I do much editing.

{{Useful links}}

Lemme guess... LowKey Lyesmith? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:02, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:They call him Mr World these days ^_^ [[User:HKing|HKing]] 00:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Please stop making comments about [[User:Bugler]]. Thanks, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Open Letter==
Good heavens, you do have a down on me. I hadn't realised before reading your lengthy analysis that I was the Worst Person Ever. Is this an Australian thing? I only ask as so many of the Bugler Bashing Club seem to originate in the Antipodes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:52, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:Not all of them. I for one am sharing your island for the moment, but am distinctly American. :P--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 09:03, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:Bugler Bashing Club? They don't have meetings and organise ways to annoy you, you've just [removed] that many people off. [[User:CJones|CJones]] 15:15, 11 December 2008 (EST)
::CJones, I can't tell if such naivety is genuine or merely put on for my benefit. This is not a dispute about an individual; it is part of an attempt to seize control of the bridge and steer Conservapedia in a leftwards direction - and onto the rocks. The Liberal putschists think that by dragging down one reasonably prominent Conservative-minded official they will be able to strengthen their own position vis-a-vis the leadership. The individual could have been Ed, or TK, or Karajou; instead, perhaps they thought that because I was newer and of a lower rank I would be easier meat. Well, I think they may be finding me a tough chew. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:29, 12 December 2008 (EST)
::::What a load of nonsense. I see that you are applying New Standards 3 and 4. You are not "easier meat" because; I am not a liberal, not even a little bit leftist, I am not attempting to seize anything, the secret clique is in your head, you are not an official, I don't have or want any position of leadership. The only direction I am trying to push is back in the direction of Christian and trustworthy. You feature in the letter because your ongoing behaviour repeatedly breaches CP's rules and guidelines, and if frankly reprehensible if you are a Christian. Andy has now clearly indicated that your breaches will be tolerated because he values your content edits. Remember, though that the only time tolerance is dealt with in Scripture is to renounce its practice.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 07:49, 12 December 2008 (EST)

:::It's nothing about rank, you just seem to use more insults than all other regular editors combined... --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:30, 12 December 2008 (EST)

User talk pages are no exception to the rule about avoiding personal remarks. Stop all this bickering, or be elsewhere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:51, 12 December 2008 (EST)

:Most of my 4th grade math students are better behaved than the typical 'blocked CP user'. I hope no one here takes that personally. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

== The December open letter. ==

What follows is the open letter I posted in December 2008. It has been expunged from Andy's talk page and I have copied it here (with my update) to retain it. Unfortunately the related discussions are probably lost forever.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:06, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Andy,

I have written what follows over the course of a couple of weeks. One of the ways that I work through my frustrations is to type it all out in the form of a letter or email and then over time work through what I typed editing out unreasonable comments or inflammatory language, and removing anything that has been dealt with in the meantime. Having done so, I find that instead of removing what has been dealt with, I am constantly adding because the situation is deteriorating rather than improving.

I therefore raise this in all seriousness and with a heavy heart.

Are you going to do something about Bugler or not? As far as I am concerned, CP’s credibility hangs by a couple of very thin threads, and the answer to this question is one of them.

Bugler’s unacceptable behaviour towards other editors includes; repeatedly insulting them (e.g. calling them “idiots”, “maggots” and such), accusing them of dishonesty and deceit, attributing malicious motives to them. Bugler exhibits much disrespect to other editors. In discussion pages Bugler is not so much “often rude” as “rarely polite”. The exception to this is when interacting with other editors that he has apparently identified as “allies” (this “group” seems to have been dubbed the “posse”).

Bugler also regularly and openly abuses his blocking rights. Often Bugler uses blocks to censor dissenting opinion, and without warning. Either CP practices ideological blocking or it does not. Presently CP practices ideological blocking (at the very least through Bugler, but I think he is following the example of others in this) but claims not to. CP also states that block warnings are appropriate, but they are extremely rare, and in at least one case that I know of the warning was immediately followed by the block with no additional edits by the blocked editor (this was not one of Bugler’s; I am unaware of any warnings that he may have given).

In November 2008 alone Bugler performed the following inappropriate blocks, and the contrib. histories show the block reasons to be invalid:. At best these blocks were erroneous and careless, at worst malicious and dishonest.

• TerrenceN – 5 years - Malicious Calumny
• LowKey – 3 months – Malicious and aggressive deceitfulness
• CarolH - 5 years - Lies and Slander
• CompuHacker - 5 years – Grossly insulting all Conservapedians
• Mike770781 – 1 month – Insulting comments
• SiemerD – 1 month – 90/10
• Fdingo – 5 years – To save trouble reverting later
• GSpalding – 5 years –Abuse [Ironically, for use of the word “stupid”]
• Ema – 5 years - Slandering CP Editors

All of the stated block reasons are false, and many if true and worthy of such blocks should earn Bugler himself similar blocks. Bugler’s abuses of blocking rights (and the lack of corrective action) have been raised before, at the Desk and on Bugler’s talk page, and in fact on several sysops talk pages, and lately on your own talk page. The response is generally a rude and insulting response from Bugler and a block for the editor raising the issue. Bugler seems to believe that his block actions are beyond discussion or questioning, a view he seems to have garnered from TK.

Bugler has also very recently given a rather extreme example of rude behaviour and abuse of blocking rights in one incident. In a single post, he accused a senior administrator of personal remarks and then likened him to a “cockerel on a dunghill”; then went on to block him and after that accused him of “last-wordism”. And again the block reason is belied; the given reason was “Insulting Andy” but on his own talk page Bugler claims that he himself is the victim, and again implies that the blocked sysop (PJR, for the record) has called him a parodist, when this is the one editor consistently stating that he does not think Bugler is a parodist.

Bugler has been called a parodist often. I think this belief is understandable but incorrect. I think Bugler is what we could a “try-hard” in my neck of the woods, someone who is trying hard to be something that would impress certain others around them (I don’t think he is the only one, but he is the most blatant). My impression is that Bugler believes his bully-boy extreme behaviour will impress you, given that he usually mentions you by name or role in mid harangue. There is also the fact that certain trigger phrases like “liberal deceit” and “sterile debate” crop up gratuitously and often. Of particular concern to me as a Christian are Bugler’s comments like “Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it.”

The question in my mind is: is he right about such behaviour impressing you? Do you want CP to be the “trustworthy” encyclopaedia it claims to be, or are you happy for it to be the rightful butt of scorn? This is demonstrated by whether take action to curb such behaviour, or tolerate it and thus endorse it.

I would like to stress that Bugler is not alone in this behaviour. RodWeathers likewise blocks giving reasons at odds with actual contributions. Ed Poor also blocks without warning, giving block reasons inconsistent with contributions, but Ed is at least conscientiously civil. TK is dismissive and insulting and seems to be another try-hard.

Interestingly, the block that Bugler hit me with was undone in about 5 minutes by a sysop, and then restored by Bugler a few days later when he realised it had been unblocked. I emailed a number sysops of over time asking for someone to at least look at the block, and give me a yes/no or at least acknowledgement. Eventually, the original unblocking sysop unblocked me again – without any contact from me - and told me “Stop making comments about Bugler.” What concerns me is that the loud-and-clear message in this is “Don’t poke the bear,” which practice already looks to be in effect among even sysops judging by the silence my enquiries generated.

Why is it that some editors are allowed to make insulting and quite possibly libellous remarks with impunity, but if other editors even try to discuss this we suffer lengthy blocks? You yourself levied a 1 month block against an editor who asked for action. I have noted that comments from editors such as PJR, although about actions and not people, are denounced by you yourself as insulting, when much worse comments by Bugler unabashedly aimed at people and not actions are quietly tolerated.

Lately, Bugler has also been deleting the talk posts of other editors. These deleted posts are neither to nor about Bugler, and they are generally not offensive in language, content or tone, unless disagreement itself is now offensive.

I fully expect a lengthy (if not permanent) block for even raising this, but if CP is to be “trustworthy” it absolutely must be addressed. Every community has members that behave contrary to that community’s standards, but when the leaders of the community turn a blind eye or endorse the behaviour of those members, they effectively change the standards of that community. Those in the community that subscribe to the community’s expressed (though no longer practiced) standards have a choice of 3 actions. Firstly, they can have the issue addressed. This has been attempted without success at CP, but I am here attempting it again. Secondly, they can remain silent and accept the new standards. Scripturally, this option cannot be supported. Thirdly, they can leave and find another community that upholds the standards.

Currently the standards practiced seem to be:

1. The truth will be declared by Andy, and it is undisputed and undeniable.
2. Disputing or denying the truth as declared is censorship; worse it is liberal censorship.
3. Editors subscribing to standards 1 and 2 can say and do pretty much anything they please on CP. without fear of reprisal
4. Editors not subscribing to standards 1,2 and 3 are liberals. They have no right to respect of even civility, and may be attacked with impunity.

Frankly, I came from Wikipedia hoping to find an encyclopaedia practicing Christian standards, but the only difference I have seen is that CP claims to be such. The claims have not yet been borne out. One of the thin threads that CP’s credibility hangs by is whether or not its own rules actually mean anything in practice. Lately, they do not, as several editors in good standard disregard them at will.

Bradley [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:54, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Jan 2009 Update ==

Bugler is gone, as in locked, blocked, deleted, purged. That could possibly have been seen as addressing his behaviour except it was not for his actual behaviour. While attempts were being made to verify a real name as part of his upcoming promotion to sysyop, he admitted to being a parodist. So while he would have been rewarded for his behaviour had it been sincere, he was expunged from CP because he didn't actually mean it.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Switch to your real first name and last initial ==

"Lowkey", I've grown tired of reverting your silly edits, and even more tired of your user id. Either request conversion of your id. to your real first name and last initial and improve your quality, or please move on. Lots of other sites with lower quality would welcome you. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::Andy, I am taking a short-to-medium break while I consider my options. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 17:23, 17 January 2009 (EST)

:And don't make ideological edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Law_of_the_excluded_middle&diff=prev&oldid=611475 this one]. It is only evolutionists who insist that every criticism of evolution is necessarily a "religious" argument - on '''their''' [[excluded middle]] grounds. This is a fallacy, because it leaves out "unknown" causation.

:If life did not emerge because of know physical causes, this doesn't mean a supernatural cause is the only other possibility. They are just using that to have a '''legal''' excuse to suppress criticism of evolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:58, 16 January 2009 (EST)
::Ed, there is not a correct statement in your post. The law of the excluded middle is in invoked by '''creationists''' on '''logical''' grounds. It is not a fallacy, it is a valid logical argument. The options are ''not'' "physical", "supernatural", or "other"; they are "natural and "supernatural", evidence against one origin (natural) are necessarily arguments for the other origin (supernatural). The argument that you present above is the one that ''evolutionists'' actually use to suppress criticism, and the law of the excluded middle is invoked by ''creationists'' to refute the evolutionists. Sorry, but you have it backwards. My edit there was not ideological, but was an example of how the law of the excluded middle is used. Odd how you seem to have assumed I am an evolutionist, when my only non-neutral edits have been anti-evolution and pro-creation. New standard number one in action again, it seems.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 17:23, 17 January 2009 (EST)

User talk:LowKey

2009-01-17T22:23:21Z

LowKey: /* Switch to your real first name and last initial */

<big>Hello, I am LowKey.</big>

I don't have too much to say at the moment. I will probably mostly read articles and talk pages before I do much editing.

{{Useful links}}

Lemme guess... LowKey Lyesmith? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 00:02, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:They call him Mr World these days ^_^ [[User:HKing|HKing]] 00:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)
Please stop making comments about [[User:Bugler]]. Thanks, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Open Letter==
Good heavens, you do have a down on me. I hadn't realised before reading your lengthy analysis that I was the Worst Person Ever. Is this an Australian thing? I only ask as so many of the Bugler Bashing Club seem to originate in the Antipodes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:52, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:Not all of them. I for one am sharing your island for the moment, but am distinctly American. :P--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 09:03, 11 December 2008 (EST)
:Bugler Bashing Club? They don't have meetings and organise ways to annoy you, you've just [removed] that many people off. [[User:CJones|CJones]] 15:15, 11 December 2008 (EST)
::CJones, I can't tell if such naivety is genuine or merely put on for my benefit. This is not a dispute about an individual; it is part of an attempt to seize control of the bridge and steer Conservapedia in a leftwards direction - and onto the rocks. The Liberal putschists think that by dragging down one reasonably prominent Conservative-minded official they will be able to strengthen their own position vis-a-vis the leadership. The individual could have been Ed, or TK, or Karajou; instead, perhaps they thought that because I was newer and of a lower rank I would be easier meat. Well, I think they may be finding me a tough chew. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:29, 12 December 2008 (EST)
::::What a load of nonsense. I see that you are applying New Standards 3 and 4. You are not "easier meat" because; I am not a liberal, not even a little bit leftist, I am not attempting to seize anything, the secret clique is in your head, you are not an official, I don't have or want any position of leadership. The only direction I am trying to push is back in the direction of Christian and trustworthy. You feature in the letter because your ongoing behaviour repeatedly breaches CP's rules and guidelines, and if frankly reprehensible if you are a Christian. Andy has now clearly indicated that your breaches will be tolerated because he values your content edits. Remember, though that the only time tolerance is dealt with in Scripture is to renounce its practice.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 07:49, 12 December 2008 (EST)

:::It's nothing about rank, you just seem to use more insults than all other regular editors combined... --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:30, 12 December 2008 (EST)

User talk pages are no exception to the rule about avoiding personal remarks. Stop all this bickering, or be elsewhere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:51, 12 December 2008 (EST)

:Most of my 4th grade math students are better behaved than the typical 'blocked CP user'. I hope no one here takes that personally. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

== The December open letter. ==

What follows is the open letter I posted in December 2008. It has been expunged from Andy's talk page and I have copied it here (with my update) to retain it. Unfortunately the related discussions are probably lost forever.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:06, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Andy,

I have written what follows over the course of a couple of weeks. One of the ways that I work through my frustrations is to type it all out in the form of a letter or email and then over time work through what I typed editing out unreasonable comments or inflammatory language, and removing anything that has been dealt with in the meantime. Having done so, I find that instead of removing what has been dealt with, I am constantly adding because the situation is deteriorating rather than improving.

I therefore raise this in all seriousness and with a heavy heart.

Are you going to do something about Bugler or not? As far as I am concerned, CP’s credibility hangs by a couple of very thin threads, and the answer to this question is one of them.

Bugler’s unacceptable behaviour towards other editors includes; repeatedly insulting them (e.g. calling them “idiots”, “maggots” and such), accusing them of dishonesty and deceit, attributing malicious motives to them. Bugler exhibits much disrespect to other editors. In discussion pages Bugler is not so much “often rude” as “rarely polite”. The exception to this is when interacting with other editors that he has apparently identified as “allies” (this “group” seems to have been dubbed the “posse”).

Bugler also regularly and openly abuses his blocking rights. Often Bugler uses blocks to censor dissenting opinion, and without warning. Either CP practices ideological blocking or it does not. Presently CP practices ideological blocking (at the very least through Bugler, but I think he is following the example of others in this) but claims not to. CP also states that block warnings are appropriate, but they are extremely rare, and in at least one case that I know of the warning was immediately followed by the block with no additional edits by the blocked editor (this was not one of Bugler’s; I am unaware of any warnings that he may have given).

In November 2008 alone Bugler performed the following inappropriate blocks, and the contrib. histories show the block reasons to be invalid:. At best these blocks were erroneous and careless, at worst malicious and dishonest.

• TerrenceN – 5 years - Malicious Calumny
• LowKey – 3 months – Malicious and aggressive deceitfulness
• CarolH - 5 years - Lies and Slander
• CompuHacker - 5 years – Grossly insulting all Conservapedians
• Mike770781 – 1 month – Insulting comments
• SiemerD – 1 month – 90/10
• Fdingo – 5 years – To save trouble reverting later
• GSpalding – 5 years –Abuse [Ironically, for use of the word “stupid”]
• Ema – 5 years - Slandering CP Editors

All of the stated block reasons are false, and many if true and worthy of such blocks should earn Bugler himself similar blocks. Bugler’s abuses of blocking rights (and the lack of corrective action) have been raised before, at the Desk and on Bugler’s talk page, and in fact on several sysops talk pages, and lately on your own talk page. The response is generally a rude and insulting response from Bugler and a block for the editor raising the issue. Bugler seems to believe that his block actions are beyond discussion or questioning, a view he seems to have garnered from TK.

Bugler has also very recently given a rather extreme example of rude behaviour and abuse of blocking rights in one incident. In a single post, he accused a senior administrator of personal remarks and then likened him to a “cockerel on a dunghill”; then went on to block him and after that accused him of “last-wordism”. And again the block reason is belied; the given reason was “Insulting Andy” but on his own talk page Bugler claims that he himself is the victim, and again implies that the blocked sysop (PJR, for the record) has called him a parodist, when this is the one editor consistently stating that he does not think Bugler is a parodist.

Bugler has been called a parodist often. I think this belief is understandable but incorrect. I think Bugler is what we could a “try-hard” in my neck of the woods, someone who is trying hard to be something that would impress certain others around them (I don’t think he is the only one, but he is the most blatant). My impression is that Bugler believes his bully-boy extreme behaviour will impress you, given that he usually mentions you by name or role in mid harangue. There is also the fact that certain trigger phrases like “liberal deceit” and “sterile debate” crop up gratuitously and often. Of particular concern to me as a Christian are Bugler’s comments like “Compassion is a virtue, but it should be reserved for those who deserve it.”

The question in my mind is: is he right about such behaviour impressing you? Do you want CP to be the “trustworthy” encyclopaedia it claims to be, or are you happy for it to be the rightful butt of scorn? This is demonstrated by whether take action to curb such behaviour, or tolerate it and thus endorse it.

I would like to stress that Bugler is not alone in this behaviour. RodWeathers likewise blocks giving reasons at odds with actual contributions. Ed Poor also blocks without warning, giving block reasons inconsistent with contributions, but Ed is at least conscientiously civil. TK is dismissive and insulting and seems to be another try-hard.

Interestingly, the block that Bugler hit me with was undone in about 5 minutes by a sysop, and then restored by Bugler a few days later when he realised it had been unblocked. I emailed a number sysops of over time asking for someone to at least look at the block, and give me a yes/no or at least acknowledgement. Eventually, the original unblocking sysop unblocked me again – without any contact from me - and told me “Stop making comments about Bugler.” What concerns me is that the loud-and-clear message in this is “Don’t poke the bear,” which practice already looks to be in effect among even sysops judging by the silence my enquiries generated.

Why is it that some editors are allowed to make insulting and quite possibly libellous remarks with impunity, but if other editors even try to discuss this we suffer lengthy blocks? You yourself levied a 1 month block against an editor who asked for action. I have noted that comments from editors such as PJR, although about actions and not people, are denounced by you yourself as insulting, when much worse comments by Bugler unabashedly aimed at people and not actions are quietly tolerated.

Lately, Bugler has also been deleting the talk posts of other editors. These deleted posts are neither to nor about Bugler, and they are generally not offensive in language, content or tone, unless disagreement itself is now offensive.

I fully expect a lengthy (if not permanent) block for even raising this, but if CP is to be “trustworthy” it absolutely must be addressed. Every community has members that behave contrary to that community’s standards, but when the leaders of the community turn a blind eye or endorse the behaviour of those members, they effectively change the standards of that community. Those in the community that subscribe to the community’s expressed (though no longer practiced) standards have a choice of 3 actions. Firstly, they can have the issue addressed. This has been attempted without success at CP, but I am here attempting it again. Secondly, they can remain silent and accept the new standards. Scripturally, this option cannot be supported. Thirdly, they can leave and find another community that upholds the standards.

Currently the standards practiced seem to be:

1. The truth will be declared by Andy, and it is undisputed and undeniable.
2. Disputing or denying the truth as declared is censorship; worse it is liberal censorship.
3. Editors subscribing to standards 1 and 2 can say and do pretty much anything they please on CP. without fear of reprisal
4. Editors not subscribing to standards 1,2 and 3 are liberals. They have no right to respect of even civility, and may be attacked with impunity.

Frankly, I came from Wikipedia hoping to find an encyclopaedia practicing Christian standards, but the only difference I have seen is that CP claims to be such. The claims have not yet been borne out. One of the thin threads that CP’s credibility hangs by is whether or not its own rules actually mean anything in practice. Lately, they do not, as several editors in good standard disregard them at will.

Bradley [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:54, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Jan 2009 Update ==

Bugler is gone, as in locked, blocked, deleted, purged. That could possibly have been seen as addressing his behaviour except it was not for his actual behaviour. While attempts were being made to verify a real name as part of his upcoming promotion to sysyop, he admitted to being a parodist. So while he would have been rewarded for his behaviour had it been sincere, he was expunged from CP because he didn't actually mean it.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Switch to your real first name and last initial ==

"Lowkey", I've grown tired of reverting your silly edits, and even more tired of your user id. Either request conversion of your id. to your real first name and last initial and improve your quality, or please move on. Lots of other sites with lower quality would welcome you. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:40, 15 January 2009 (EST)

:Andy, I am taking a short-to-medium break while I consider my options. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 17:23, 17 January 2009 (EST)

:And don't make ideological edits like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Law_of_the_excluded_middle&diff=prev&oldid=611475 this one]. It is only evolutionists who insist that every criticism of evolution is necessarily a "religious" argument - on '''their''' [[excluded middle]] grounds. This is a fallacy, because it leaves out "unknown" causation.

:If life did not emerge because of know physical causes, this doesn't mean a supernatural cause is the only other possibility. They are just using that to have a '''legal''' excuse to suppress criticism of evolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:58, 16 January 2009 (EST)
::Ed, there is not a correct statement in your post. The law of the excluded middle is in invoked by '''creationists''' on '''logical''' grounds. It is not a fallacy, it is a valid logical argument. The options are "physical", "supernatural", or "other"; they are "natural and "supernatural", evidence against one origin (natural) are necessarily arguments for the other origin (supernatural). The argument that you present above is the one that ''evolutionists'' actually use to suppress criticism, and the law of the excluded middle is invoked by ''creationists'' to refute the evolutionists. Sorry, but you have it backwards. My edit there was not ideological, but was an example of how the law of the excluded middle is used. Odd how you seem to have assumed I am an evolutionist, when my only non-neutral edits have been anti-evolution and pro-creation. New standard number one in action again, it seems.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 17:23, 17 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Koala

2009-01-16T02:58:54Z

LowKey: /* How many hours do they sleep? */ new section

== How did they get to Australia? ==

How exactly did the koalas get to Australia after the big flood? I thought that Noah landed his ark in the Urartian Mountains. That's in Armenia. Not by Australia. So could someone please explain to me how they got there!! I really don't think that kangaroos could have carried them in there pouches the whole way. How could the kangaroo hop over the ocean?

Easy. They stood on the back of the playpuses, which were much bigger then. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 20:58, 10 January 2008 (EST)

== Ridiculous premise... ==

So Koalas jumped into Kangaroo pouches to make the journey to Australia? Conservapedia is one of the silliest, most ridiculous things on the web. Didn't I give you eyes, ears and hands to experience the world for yourselves? As your Good God Almighty I ask you to resist falling for the idiocy promoted by others. Use your brains and learn from your own experiences. The bible was written and promoted by people in their quest for the domination of others. I had nothing to do with it. So, wake up, smell the roses, use your eyes to see the truth that surrounds you and then use your hands and hearts to build a better future for our planet, your human kind and all the creatures of my creation.

== Nomination ==

I nominate this for FA (Funny Article) status. I've seen koalas mating on Animal Planet, and imaging a fiercer, more virile version of the same, riding in kangaroos like some kind of marsupial Master Blaster, takes my breath away.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Omigawd. This is very funny! I am going to copy this article before it is changed. Stupidpedia strikes again!--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== How did they get to Australia? I'll tell you ==
Obviously the kangaroos (with the other marsupials in their pouches) climbed on the back of the salt water crocodiles to cross the big flood. The echidnas had to make their own arrangements though as they were too prickly to share a pouch with. Hence the proverb "I can't live with a bunch of pricks like you". {{unsigned|Dave48}}

Can someone revert the factual explanation of how koalas got from the Middle East to Australia please? {{unsigned|Ferret}}
:What are you referring to? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::There used to be a useful explanation here of how it came to be that koalas migrated from their original home after the flood, to Australia. As that's the sort of thing that Wikipedia bans, it would be great to have it here. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 03:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:::If you are talking about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Koala&diff=144577&oldid=144559 this deletion], that is a mixture of creationist views and fiction. It would need rewriting before it was put back in. IF that's not what you mean, please show me what bit you do mean. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::::That's the bit. Obviously it's just a theory - it could never be proven one way or the other. But the bits which are "official" creationist views should go back in if possible. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 02:56, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::As long as there are no evolutionist views in the article, it might be better to leave that out for now. That's not to say that it can't go back at some time in the future. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Pouch Location? ==

In the first section, marsupial is being defined as an animal which has a pouch on its belly. In the last section, it says that koalas pouches are on their backs. Can someone who knows about this fix this seeming contradiction?-- {{unsigned|Excal}}
:It wasn't a contradition, but it was, as you say, a ''seeming'' contradiction. "Toward the rear" did not mean "on the back", but (in the case of koalas who tend to be upright clinging to trees), ''downward''. I've altered the article to clarify that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:05, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== How many hours do they sleep? ==

The article says both 18 and 20. Wich is it?[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:58, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Crocodile

2009-01-16T02:52:52Z

LowKey: /* Man-eating crocodiles */

[[Image:Americancrocodile.jpg|thumb|right|An American crocodile.]]

'''Crocodiles''' and their close relations [[alligator]]s, [[caiman]]s and [[gavial]]s, are a family of predatory, aquatic [[reptile]]s. Crocodiles are found throughout the warm parts of the world - in sub-Saharan Africa, India and South-East Asia, Indonesia and Australia, and throughout tropical America. Until recently Nile crocodiles were also found throughout North Africa, and in Palestine <ref>http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Palestine#Fauna</ref>. The largest Nile and Estuarine crocodiles may grow to 25 or even 30 feet in length, but this is not normal.

=== Species of crocodile ===

*Nile crocodile (Africa)
*American crocodile ([[Caribbean Sea]], including the southern [[United States]])
*Morelet's crocodile (Central America)
*Cuban crocodile (Cuba)
*Mugger crocodile (India)
*Estuarine crocodile (Australia and South-East Asia)
*Johnstone's crocodile (Australia)
*Siamese crocodile (South-East Asia)
*Philippine crocodile (Philippines)
and several others.

== Habits ==

Crocodiles generally capture their prey, often large [[mammal]]s such as [[antelope]]s, by drifting close to them, motionless, pretending to be a floating log, then lunging and dragging their victim underwater, where it is drowned, then left to rot and soften up for later consumption.

Crocodiles typically lay their eggs in a mound of rotting vegetation; the mother will guard the nest from marauding [[iguana]]s and other egg-thieves, and solicitously adjust the depth to which the eggs are buried. When the baby crocodiles hatch, she will carry them to the water in her mouth.

Many crocodiles [[aestivation|aestivate]] during summer.

== Uses of crocodiles ==

Crocodiles are commercially farmed in many places, for their leather, which is made into expensive shoes and handbags, and recently, in Australia, for their meat.

== Man-eating crocodiles ==

Most crocodiles are not aggressive unless provoked, but three species, the Nile crocodile of Africa, the Mugger crocodile of India and the Estuarine crocodile of Australia and South-East Asia, have a long history of attacking humans.

== Crocodiles in the Bible ==

Some Biblical scholars have suggested that [[Leviathan]] may have been a crocodile, though others dispute this. [http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article01.html]

== Crocodile trivia ==

*They are said to shed ''Crocodile tears'', an insincere show of grief, in order to lure their victims into range.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Reptiles]]
[[Category:Dangerous Animals]]
[[Category:Livestock]]

Crocodile

2009-01-16T02:52:30Z

LowKey: removed unsubstantiated assertion

[[Image:Americancrocodile.jpg|thumb|right|An American crocodile.]]

'''Crocodiles''' and their close relations [[alligator]]s, [[caiman]]s and [[gavial]]s, are a family of predatory, aquatic [[reptile]]s. Crocodiles are found throughout the warm parts of the world - in sub-Saharan Africa, India and South-East Asia, Indonesia and Australia, and throughout tropical America. Until recently Nile crocodiles were also found throughout North Africa, and in Palestine <ref>http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Palestine#Fauna</ref>. The largest Nile and Estuarine crocodiles may grow to 25 or even 30 feet in length, but this is not normal.

=== Species of crocodile ===

*Nile crocodile (Africa)
*American crocodile ([[Caribbean Sea]], including the southern [[United States]])
*Morelet's crocodile (Central America)
*Cuban crocodile (Cuba)
*Mugger crocodile (India)
*Estuarine crocodile (Australia and South-East Asia)
*Johnstone's crocodile (Australia)
*Siamese crocodile (South-East Asia)
*Philippine crocodile (Philippines)
and several others.

== Habits ==

Crocodiles generally capture their prey, often large [[mammal]]s such as [[antelope]]s, by drifting close to them, motionless, pretending to be a floating log, then lunging and dragging their victim underwater, where it is drowned, then left to rot and soften up for later consumption.

Crocodiles typically lay their eggs in a mound of rotting vegetation; the mother will guard the nest from marauding [[iguana]]s and other egg-thieves, and solicitously adjust the depth to which the eggs are buried. When the baby crocodiles hatch, she will carry them to the water in her mouth.

Many crocodiles [[aestivation|aestivate]] during summer.

== Uses of crocodiles ==

Crocodiles are commercially farmed in many places, for their leather, which is made into expensive shoes and handbags, and recently, in Australia, for their meat.

== Man-eating crocodiles ==

Most crocodiles are good-natured unless provoked, but three species, the Nile crocodile of Africa, the Mugger crocodile of India and the Estuarine crocodile of Australia and South-East Asia, have a long history of attacking humans.

== Crocodiles in the Bible ==

Some Biblical scholars have suggested that [[Leviathan]] may have been a crocodile, though others dispute this. [http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article01.html]

== Crocodile trivia ==

*They are said to shed ''Crocodile tears'', an insincere show of grief, in order to lure their victims into range.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Reptiles]]
[[Category:Dangerous Animals]]
[[Category:Livestock]]

Crocodile

2009-01-16T02:48:38Z

LowKey: /* Uses of crocodiles */ removed silliness

[[Image:Americancrocodile.jpg|thumb|right|An American crocodile.]]

'''Crocodiles''' and their close relations [[alligator]]s, [[caiman]]s and [[gavial]]s, are a family of predatory, aquatic [[reptile]]s. Crocodiles are found throughout the warm parts of the world - in sub-Saharan Africa, India and South-East Asia, Indonesia and Australia, and throughout tropical America. Until recently Nile crocodiles were also found throughout North Africa, and in Palestine <ref>http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Palestine#Fauna</ref>. The largest Nile and Estuarine crocodiles may grow to 25 or even 30 feet in length, but this is not normal.

=== Species of crocodile ===

*Nile crocodile (Africa)
*American crocodile ([[Caribbean Sea]], including the southern [[United States]])
*Morelet's crocodile (Central America)
*Cuban crocodile (Cuba)
*Mugger crocodile (India)
*Estuarine crocodile (Australia and South-East Asia)
*Johnstone's crocodile (Australia)
*Siamese crocodile (South-East Asia)
*Philippine crocodile (Philippines)
and several others.

== Habits ==

Crocodiles generally capture their prey, often large [[mammal]]s such as [[antelope]]s, by drifting close to them, motionless, pretending to be a floating log, then lunging and dragging their victim underwater, where it is drowned, then left to rot and soften up for later consumption.

Crocodiles typically lay their eggs in a mound of rotting vegetation; the mother will guard the nest from marauding [[iguana]]s and other egg-thieves, and solicitously adjust the depth to which the eggs are buried. When the baby crocodiles hatch, she will carry them to the water in her mouth.

Many crocodiles [[aestivation|aestivate]] during summer.

== Uses of crocodiles ==

Crocodiles are commercially farmed in many places, for their leather, which is made into expensive shoes and handbags, and recently, in Australia, for their meat.

== Man-eating crocodiles ==

Most crocodiles are good-natured unless provoked, but three species, the Nile crocodile of Africa, the Mugger crocodile of India (for whom [[mugging|muggers]] are named) and the Estuarine crocodile of Australia and South-East Asia, have a long history of attacking humans.

== Crocodiles in the Bible ==

Some Biblical scholars have suggested that [[Leviathan]] may have been a crocodile, though others dispute this. [http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article01.html]

== Crocodile trivia ==

*They are said to shed ''Crocodile tears'', an insincere show of grief, in order to lure their victims into range.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Reptiles]]
[[Category:Dangerous Animals]]
[[Category:Livestock]]

Crocodile

2009-01-16T02:46:47Z

LowKey: No need for the evolutionary view

[[Image:Americancrocodile.jpg|thumb|right|An American crocodile.]]

'''Crocodiles''' and their close relations [[alligator]]s, [[caiman]]s and [[gavial]]s, are a family of predatory, aquatic [[reptile]]s. Crocodiles are found throughout the warm parts of the world - in sub-Saharan Africa, India and South-East Asia, Indonesia and Australia, and throughout tropical America. Until recently Nile crocodiles were also found throughout North Africa, and in Palestine <ref>http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Palestine#Fauna</ref>. The largest Nile and Estuarine crocodiles may grow to 25 or even 30 feet in length, but this is not normal.

=== Species of crocodile ===

*Nile crocodile (Africa)
*American crocodile ([[Caribbean Sea]], including the southern [[United States]])
*Morelet's crocodile (Central America)
*Cuban crocodile (Cuba)
*Mugger crocodile (India)
*Estuarine crocodile (Australia and South-East Asia)
*Johnstone's crocodile (Australia)
*Siamese crocodile (South-East Asia)
*Philippine crocodile (Philippines)
and several others.

== Habits ==

Crocodiles generally capture their prey, often large [[mammal]]s such as [[antelope]]s, by drifting close to them, motionless, pretending to be a floating log, then lunging and dragging their victim underwater, where it is drowned, then left to rot and soften up for later consumption.

Crocodiles typically lay their eggs in a mound of rotting vegetation; the mother will guard the nest from marauding [[iguana]]s and other egg-thieves, and solicitously adjust the depth to which the eggs are buried. When the baby crocodiles hatch, she will carry them to the water in her mouth.

Many crocodiles [[aestivation|aestivate]] during summer.

== Uses of crocodiles ==

Crocodiles are commercially farmed in many places, for their leather, which is made into expensive shoes and handbags, and recently, in Australia, for their meat, supposed to taste like chicken. Unlike [[alligator]]s, they are not used for wrestling.

== Man-eating crocodiles ==

Most crocodiles are good-natured unless provoked, but three species, the Nile crocodile of Africa, the Mugger crocodile of India (for whom [[mugging|muggers]] are named) and the Estuarine crocodile of Australia and South-East Asia, have a long history of attacking humans.

== Crocodiles in the Bible ==

Some Biblical scholars have suggested that [[Leviathan]] may have been a crocodile, though others dispute this. [http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/article01.html]

== Crocodile trivia ==

*They are said to shed ''Crocodile tears'', an insincere show of grief, in order to lure their victims into range.

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Reptiles]]
[[Category:Dangerous Animals]]
[[Category:Livestock]]

Law of the excluded middle

2009-01-16T02:42:33Z

LowKey:

The '''[[law]] of the excluded middle''' is a principle in [[modern logic]] that means something is either true or it is false. There is no "middle" between true and false.

In classical logic, this principle for a proposition A would be A V ~A.

== Usage in Creation/Evolution Debate ==

The law of the excluded middle is invoked in the creation/evolution debate.

Evolutionists sometimes attempt to dismiss counter-evidence to evolution and abiogenesis, claiming that this should not be taken as evidence for special creation. Creationists point out that either life either began naturally or supernaturally; there is no middle option. This means that evidence against the naturalistic explanation (evolution) is necessarily evidence in favour of the supernatural explanation (creation).

[[category:logic]]

Brisbane

2009-01-16T02:27:38Z

LowKey:

'''Brisbane''' is the capital city of the state of [[Queensland]], [[Australia]]. It has a population of approximately 1,800,000, and is the third largest Australian city, by population size. The Brisbane River runs through the city dividing it into the "Northside" and "Southside" in local idiom.

==See Also==
*[[Brisbane Australia Temple]]

[[Category:Australian Cities and Towns]]

Talk:Fred Hoyle

2009-01-16T02:22:09Z

LowKey: Response to last word-ism

Although the edit I made changed [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s original edit, the reference he cited '''does not''' explain anything about an "obvious punishment", that the [[Nobel Prize]] was awarded to "underlings", nor any correlation that he was not given the Nobel Prize for "uncovering" the [[Archaeopteryx]] was a fraud. Since even YIC sites claim the Archaeopteryx is presently real, I would assume Hoyle's thesis on it would be a ''claim'' now. It would be misleading to purport his thesis as a fact still, without offering any counterclaim. [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 23:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I just changed the "fraud" bit. I didn't take it out but turned it into a report on what Hoyle was doing, rather than a finding of whether his claim was correct or not. Let readers know the facts, and let's not all argue over the conclusions. FACT: Hoyle called it a fraud. CONCLUSIONS: He was right/ He was wrong. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:I think Andy's point was that Hoyle made himself unpopular by questioning the most important "[[missing link]]" fossil. Those who strongly believed in [[Evolution]] did not take kindly to an attempt to undermine their faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::...and it still shows that. Although, I am pretty sure that his earlier direct criticism had ''something'' do with it as well :).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:07, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: The timing suggests the evolution criticism was the main reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::Why would good scientists not denounce something that needs denouncing? "Exposing" embodies the conclusion that it ''was'' a fraud when many who would know more about it than Hoyle did have disputed/denied that fact. We should report facts, not present our own conclusions. Hoyle was brilliant, but he was plain wrong on several counts. Do not forget that he was an atheistic scientist for some time, so he was quite capable of interpreting evidence to arrive at the wrong conclusion. I don't want to put "claimed" as that embodies the negative conclusion to some degree. "Denounced" is what he did; he named it false. I will continue to look for a word that is more satisfactory to all.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 09:54, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Lowkey, don't push evolution bias here. Hoyle was the preeminent British physicist of the 20th century. When he declared the [[Archaeopteryx]] to be a fraud, that was the same as exposing it as a fraud. The fact that some [[evolutionists]] cling to frauds no matter how compelling the evidence (see, e.g., the [[Piltdown man]]) does not change these facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::Andy, I am making a good-faith attempt to keep the article factual while avoiding disputed conclusions. That is not evolutionary bias. Hoyle had more evolutionary bias than I do (he essentially promulgated theistic evolution), and based on your unfounded criticisms of YEC so it appears do you (have more evolutionary bias, that is). The Nobel Prize committee could only punish him for '''exposing''' a fraud if they believed it '''was''' a fraud. Are you saying that this is what they believed? If not, then they could only be punishing him for his '''claim''' and its controversy. One exposes a fraud when one claims a fraud and then the claim is proven. Hoyle only managed the first element of that.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:46, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::::::: "Lowkey", your statement is illogical and full of non sequiturs, and even misrepresents my own statements. Don't push evolutionism here. Hoyle was punished for exposing the [[Archaeopteryx]] fraud, and your attempts to dilute that historical fact are unjustified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::Point out a logical fallacy (non-sequiturs included). What statement did I misrepresent and how? How did I push evolutionism? Please respond with substance or cease the accusations. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:04, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::: "LowKey", I don't have more time to waste on this. Hoyle exposed the fraud. I hope you're making substantive additions to this encyclopedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:15, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::::: Why waste time supporting assertions when one can simply keep repeating them? I try to make substantive additions, but I keep running into New Standard number 1. Next time please support the accusations or don't make them in the first place.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:22, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Andy, if Hoyle's scientific pre-eminence is sufficient justification for accepting his conclusions about the Archaeopteryx, should we also accept his conclusions about a steady-state universe and deistic evolution? He ultimately did not reject evolution, merely naturalistic evolution. I on the other hand reject evolution altogether.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:25, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't delete factual information like that. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:"Reversion explained"? You didn't explain anything! I explained why I changed it, the least you can do is the same. [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Fred Hoyle

2009-01-16T00:25:17Z

LowKey:

Although the edit I made changed [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s original edit, the reference he cited '''does not''' explain anything about an "obvious punishment", that the [[Nobel Prize]] was awarded to "underlings", nor any correlation that he was not given the Nobel Prize for "uncovering" the [[Archaeopteryx]] was a fraud. Since even YIC sites claim the Archaeopteryx is presently real, I would assume Hoyle's thesis on it would be a ''claim'' now. It would be misleading to purport his thesis as a fact still, without offering any counterclaim. [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 23:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I just changed the "fraud" bit. I didn't take it out but turned it into a report on what Hoyle was doing, rather than a finding of whether his claim was correct or not. Let readers know the facts, and let's not all argue over the conclusions. FACT: Hoyle called it a fraud. CONCLUSIONS: He was right/ He was wrong. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:I think Andy's point was that Hoyle made himself unpopular by questioning the most important "[[missing link]]" fossil. Those who strongly believed in [[Evolution]] did not take kindly to an attempt to undermine their faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::...and it still shows that. Although, I am pretty sure that his earlier direct criticism had ''something'' do with it as well :).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:07, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: The timing suggests the evolution criticism was the main reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::Why would good scientists not denounce something that needs denouncing? "Exposing" embodies the conclusion that it ''was'' a fraud when many who would know more about it than Hoyle did have disputed/denied that fact. We should report facts, not present our own conclusions. Hoyle was brilliant, but he was plain wrong on several counts. Do not forget that he was an atheistic scientist for some time, so he was quite capable of interpreting evidence to arrive at the wrong conclusion. I don't want to put "claimed" as that embodies the negative conclusion to some degree. "Denounced" is what he did; he named it false. I will continue to look for a word that is more satisfactory to all.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 09:54, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Lowkey, don't push evolution bias here. Hoyle was the preeminent British physicist of the 20th century. When he declared the [[Archaeopteryx]] to be a fraud, that was the same as exposing it as a fraud. The fact that some [[evolutionists]] cling to frauds no matter how compelling the evidence (see, e.g., the [[Piltdown man]]) does not change these facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::Andy, I am making a good-faith attempt to keep the article factual while avoiding disputed conclusions. That is not evolutionary bias. Hoyle had more evolutionary bias than I do (he essentially promulgated theistic evolution), and based on your unfounded criticisms of YEC so it appears do you (have more evolutionary bias, that is). The Nobel Prize committee could only punish him for '''exposing''' a fraud if they believed it '''was''' a fraud. Are you saying that this is what they believed? If not, then they could only be punishing him for his '''claim''' and its controversy. One exposes a fraud when one claims a fraud and then the claim is proven. Hoyle only managed the first element of that.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:46, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::::::: "Lowkey", your statement is illogical and full of non sequiturs, and even misrepresents my own statements. Don't push evolutionism here. Hoyle was punished for exposing the [[Archaeopteryx]] fraud, and your attempts to dilute that historical fact are unjustified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::Point out a logical fallacy (non-sequiturs included). What statement did I misrepresent and how? How did I push evolutionism? Please respond with substance or cease the accusations. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:04, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Andy, if Hoyle's scientific pre-eminence is sufficient justification for accepting his conclusions about the Archaeopteryx, should we also accept his conclusions about a steady-state universe and deistic evolution? He ultimately did not reject evolution, merely naturalistic evolution. I on the other hand reject evolution altogether.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:25, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't delete factual information like that. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:"Reversion explained"? You didn't explain anything! I explained why I changed it, the least you can do is the same. [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Fred Hoyle

2009-01-16T00:04:20Z

LowKey: Responding to more accusations

Although the edit I made changed [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s original edit, the reference he cited '''does not''' explain anything about an "obvious punishment", that the [[Nobel Prize]] was awarded to "underlings", nor any correlation that he was not given the Nobel Prize for "uncovering" the [[Archaeopteryx]] was a fraud. Since even YIC sites claim the Archaeopteryx is presently real, I would assume Hoyle's thesis on it would be a ''claim'' now. It would be misleading to purport his thesis as a fact still, without offering any counterclaim. [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 23:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I just changed the "fraud" bit. I didn't take it out but turned it into a report on what Hoyle was doing, rather than a finding of whether his claim was correct or not. Let readers know the facts, and let's not all argue over the conclusions. FACT: Hoyle called it a fraud. CONCLUSIONS: He was right/ He was wrong. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:I think Andy's point was that Hoyle made himself unpopular by questioning the most important "[[missing link]]" fossil. Those who strongly believed in [[Evolution]] did not take kindly to an attempt to undermine their faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::...and it still shows that. Although, I am pretty sure that his earlier direct criticism had ''something'' do with it as well :).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:07, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: The timing suggests the evolution criticism was the main reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::Why would good scientists not denounce something that needs denouncing? "Exposing" embodies the conclusion that it ''was'' a fraud when many who would know more about it than Hoyle did have disputed/denied that fact. We should report facts, not present our own conclusions. Hoyle was brilliant, but he was plain wrong on several counts. Do not forget that he was an atheistic scientist for some time, so he was quite capable of interpreting evidence to arrive at the wrong conclusion. I don't want to put "claimed" as that embodies the negative conclusion to some degree. "Denounced" is what he did; he named it false. I will continue to look for a word that is more satisfactory to all.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 09:54, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Lowkey, don't push evolution bias here. Hoyle was the preeminent British physicist of the 20th century. When he declared the [[Archaeopteryx]] to be a fraud, that was the same as exposing it as a fraud. The fact that some [[evolutionists]] cling to frauds no matter how compelling the evidence (see, e.g., the [[Piltdown man]]) does not change these facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::Andy, I am making a good-faith attempt to keep the article factual while avoiding disputed conclusions. That is not evolutionary bias. Hoyle had more evolutionary bias than I do (he essentially promulgated theistic evolution), and based on your unfounded criticisms of YEC so it appears do you (have more evolutionary bias, that is). The Nobel Prize committee could only punish him for '''exposing''' a fraud if they believed it '''was''' a fraud. Are you saying that this is what they believed? If not, then they could only be punishing him for his '''claim''' and its controversy. One exposes a fraud when one claims a fraud and then the claim is proven. Hoyle only managed the first element of that.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:46, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::::::: "Lowkey", your statement is illogical and full of non sequiturs, and even misrepresents my own statements. Don't push evolutionism here. Hoyle was punished for exposing the [[Archaeopteryx]] fraud, and your attempts to dilute that historical fact are unjustified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::Point out a logical fallacy (non-sequiturs included). What statement did I misrepresent and how? How did I push evolutionism? Please respond with substance or cease the accusations. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:04, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't delete factual information like that. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:"Reversion explained"? You didn't explain anything! I explained why I changed it, the least you can do is the same. [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Fred Hoyle

2009-01-15T23:47:50Z

LowKey: I will try Andy's own word, as he said it is the same thing.

'''Fred Hoyle''' (1915-2001) was a British [[astronomer]] who developed the [[steady state theory]] of [[cosmology]].
He was noted for his rejection of [[naturalistic]] theories of how the [[universe]] came into being.<ref>He supported the [[anthropic principle]], holding that there is a [[design in creation]]: the universe was designed in such a way as to produce life. [http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm]</ref>
Nobel Prize winner [[William Alfred Fowler]] wrote: "Fred Hoyle was the second great influence in my life. The grand concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first definitely established by Hoyle in 1946."<ref>http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm</ref> During a radio lecture, he coined the term "[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]" to ridicule the theory (which he disbelieved<ref>Hoyle held out against Big Bang theory, even post-1965, when the discovery of a microwave background in the universe led most cosmologists to favor it. [http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-54/iss-11/p75b.html Physics Today] obituary </ref>) that the universe began from an explosion.

Hoyle was best known for his seminal contributions to the theory of the structure of [[star]]s and on the origin of the chemical elements in stars. He was a joint proponent of the steady state model of the universe, which claims, in contradiction to the [[Biblical creation account]], that the universe had no beginning.

In 1983 the [[Nobel Prize]] committee insulted Hoyle by passing him over and giving the award to underlings for his work. "For ... one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of modern physics, he was ignored by the Nobel Prize committee which chose to reward others who had done lesser work in this field. Thus, the scientific establishment, which claims to seek truth dispassionately, treated one of its finest proponents with contempt."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jul/24/biography.features1</ref> In the same year Hoyle had declared that the [[Archaeopteryx]] - then a favorite of promoters of [[evolution]] - was a fraud. Several years earlier, Hoyle had also condemned the exclusion of [[Jocelyn Bell Burnell]] from the 1974 Nobel Prize for Physics.

By 1946 Hoyle had formulated the original and still generally accepted idea that the elements are generated in evolving stars and injected into the interstellar medium by [[supernova]] explosions. In 1957 he collaborated with William Alfred Fowler, Margaret Burbidge and Geoffrey Burbidge on an epoch-making paper on the nucleosynthesis of elements in stars.<ref>http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0275%2FHoyle</ref>

{{quotebox|"The likelihood (probability) of the [[spontaneous generation|spontaneous formation]] of life from inanimate matter is one to number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole [[theory of evolution]]. There was no [[primeval soup]], neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fredrick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 148. <ref>http://www.discoveryevent.com/quotes1.htm</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413270a0.html Obituary: Fred Hoyle (1915–2001)] - ''Nature'' 413, 270 (20 September 2001)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hoyle, Fred}}

[[Category:Astronomers]]
[[Category:Former Atheists]]

Talk:Fred Hoyle

2009-01-15T23:46:51Z

LowKey: Please stick to the content, and avoid unfounded accusations.

Although the edit I made changed [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s original edit, the reference he cited '''does not''' explain anything about an "obvious punishment", that the [[Nobel Prize]] was awarded to "underlings", nor any correlation that he was not given the Nobel Prize for "uncovering" the [[Archaeopteryx]] was a fraud. Since even YIC sites claim the Archaeopteryx is presently real, I would assume Hoyle's thesis on it would be a ''claim'' now. It would be misleading to purport his thesis as a fact still, without offering any counterclaim. [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 23:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I just changed the "fraud" bit. I didn't take it out but turned it into a report on what Hoyle was doing, rather than a finding of whether his claim was correct or not. Let readers know the facts, and let's not all argue over the conclusions. FACT: Hoyle called it a fraud. CONCLUSIONS: He was right/ He was wrong. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:I think Andy's point was that Hoyle made himself unpopular by questioning the most important "[[missing link]]" fossil. Those who strongly believed in [[Evolution]] did not take kindly to an attempt to undermine their faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::...and it still shows that. Although, I am pretty sure that his earlier direct criticism had ''something'' do with it as well :).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:07, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: The timing suggests the evolution criticism was the main reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::Why would good scientists not denounce something that needs denouncing? "Exposing" embodies the conclusion that it ''was'' a fraud when many who would know more about it than Hoyle did have disputed/denied that fact. We should report facts, not present our own conclusions. Hoyle was brilliant, but he was plain wrong on several counts. Do not forget that he was an atheistic scientist for some time, so he was quite capable of interpreting evidence to arrive at the wrong conclusion. I don't want to put "claimed" as that embodies the negative conclusion to some degree. "Denounced" is what he did; he named it false. I will continue to look for a word that is more satisfactory to all.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 09:54, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Lowkey, don't push evolution bias here. Hoyle was the preeminent British physicist of the 20th century. When he declared the [[Archaeopteryx] to be a fraud, that was the same as exposing it as a fraud. The fact that some [[evolutionists]] cling to frauds no matter how compelling the evidence (see, e.g., the [[Piltdown man]]) does not change these facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::Andy, I am making a good-faith attempt to keep the article factual while avoiding disputed conclusions. That is not evolutionary bias. Hoyle had more evolutionary bias than I do (he essentially promulgated theistic evolution), and based on your unfounded criticisms of YEC so it appears do you (have more evolutionary bias, that is). The Nobel Prize committee could only punish him for '''exposing''' a fraud if they believed it '''was''' a fraud. Are you saying that this is what they believed? If not, then they could only be punishing him for his '''claim''' and its controversy. One exposes a fraud when one claims a fraud and then the claim is proven. Hoyle only managed the first element of that.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:46, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't delete factual information like that. This is not [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:"Reversion explained"? You didn't explain anything! I explained why I changed it, the least you can do is the same. [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Gun control

2009-01-15T15:07:02Z

LowKey: /* What is the conservative position on gun control? */

[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (30th December 2008)

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. '''''Conserv'''apedia'' is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Can we please address the "far more rural" error? I've looked into this, and USA and Aus have not kept demographic data in the same manner, so it takes a lot of interpretation to arrive at any kind of comparison at all. USA lists population distribution by Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan, and Aus lists distribution by Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. The percentage of USA's population in Non-Metropolitan areas (which would include but not be exclusively composed of rural areas) is about 10.5%. The percentage of Australia's population in Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas is about 12%. Again these areas include rural and non-rural. So there ''could be'' a difference of about 1.5 percentage points. The "far more rural" statement as it stands is misleading and groundless. Regardless, shouldn't the editor who inserted the comparisons (rural/non rural, and drug culture) be the one to substantiate those comparisons, especially as they have been challenged? I am going to modify the "rural" statement for now, pending better data.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

: Your statistics are meaningless, because USA cities are much bigger than Australian cities. The slums of Sydney are nothing compared with the slums of Chicago, where homicide rates are much higher.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::Then talk about population density and be done with it, even comparing the ''urban'' population densities if that is more in keeping with what you are trying to get across. But Australia is '''not''' "far more rural" than USA as the the population distribution (by percentage) is much the same. Australian cities may have fewer people than USA cities, but Australian rural areas have '''far''' fewer people than USA rural areas. Outside of our cities and towns, this is a very empty country as far as human occupation goes. We actually have stations (ranches to you) comparable in size to the state of Texas, generally populated by a family and some workers. I don't understand why you insist on that false statement.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:43, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::: Your rant is bizarre; it only reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the U.S. Taken in the context of crime rates, the "far more rural" description is apt. You have not suggested an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::::Please don’t be insulting. It was not a rant. I was (and am) quite calm and rational. Maybe the station/Texas comparison in the middle made it a little disjointed, but that is no excuse for calling it bizarre. I was pointing out that Australia’s rural areas are extremely sparsely populated and you say that this reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the USA, which makes no sense. The fact is that even in Australia’s remote areas, most of the population is concentrated in mining towns and such, and is therefore not rural. So the statistic of 12% for Australia was extremely generous as it could well be a mere fraction of that, in which case Australia is less rural than USA.

Whatever the context, a description is not apt if it is not accurate, and you have not in any way shown it to be accurate. If you wish to reflect the overall comparative crime rates, then maybe you should do so explicitly.

Can I perhaps ask you to clearly define what you mean by the statement that Australia is far more rural than the USA? I would have thought it referred to the percentage of the population that are in rural communities (as defined by the predominant activities of the community), but perhaps you are referring to something else.

Also, I didn’t suggest an improvement because I made the change to the article myself, as you well know because you censored it. But if you want a suggestion, either state the truth about comparative “rurality” or excise the statement altogether.

By the way, the article is attempting to make the case that gun control has effected Australian crime, culture and politics over the last decade or so but why should the effect start then, when gun control has been pretty tight for several decades at least? In the 1950’s in Western Australia my father had to fill out a form at the local police station before he could buy ammunition for his rifles (.303 and .22).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:06, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Okay, I had to guess what you meant. I am sure will will let me know. There a probably quite a number of ways of stating your point, but "far more rural" is just not accurate unless you are using terms in an uncommon fashion.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:17, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:: Good improvement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== An Unbiased View (I hope)==

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control).
Right.

Pro:

:Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

:Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

:Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

:Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

:While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

:Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

:Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

:Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

:Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: Your "pros" and "cons" are quite biased, unfortunately. You do not mention how [[gun control]] has repeatedly led to genocide and socialism. You omit the main reason liberals push for gun control: they want the political effects that more government control brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: Well, I didn't really do that much research, and I preferred to think about gun control on a personal level; I think it's a long shot to predict politcal change based on whether people have guns or not, and I don't see how gun control leads to genocide and socialism. But it's your wiki, so unless you want to I won't debate any further. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: ETrundel, I thought you were trying to be substantive. I wouldn't have bothered responding to you if I knew you were going to wave off a substantive point about genocide like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Trundel has presented the liberal POV of the pros and cons. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:I am trying to be substantive (sorry for any misunderstandings); from what I know of genocides, taking various African countries as examples, genocide is usually the result of the fact that every man and his dog has a gun stashed away somewhere - but this is not as a result of gun control, or the lack of it - rather, the fact that shady countries (for example, I believe China finds an eager weapons market in areas such as Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa) find that they can easily unload all their unwanted weapons, legally or otherwise. I have read the section on gun control and genocide, and I accept than unarmed groups are certainly easier targets for the army; however, I don't believe that the army would have particular trouble with an armed group either, and I believe that resistance can make things worse; more than one family has been murdered because a shot came from their house. And take the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2; when Jews began to fight back against the Germans taking them to concentration camps, by the end of the battle (which lasted just a month) over 10,000 Jews lay dead, and another 50,000 were shipped off to extermination (not concentration) camps. I suppose it all depends on your point of view; as one historian put it, whether it is better to 'die on your feet or live on your knees'. In my opinion, it is better to die on your feet; however, all too often this leads to people dying on their knees as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and that you understand that I agree with the points stated in the article. However, I feel that the only way of preventing genocide by having guns is when the guns actually act as a deterrent, preventing conflict (rather than being used in a conflict). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Completely incorrect. The mass murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda was carried out primarily with machetes. If every man had a gun stashed somewhere, machetes would have been useless. You yourself have acknowledged that unarmed groups are certainly easier targets. Did the Jews in the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprisng]] have guns? How many? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::: If every man had a gun stashed in their house, the people committing the genocide would have had guns too. How would you expect the average Rwandan to get a gun anyway, let alone be able to use it? I've done a little research, and it turns out that the people doing the killing were militiamen, who would probably be more experienced with a gun than those people. I really don't think that more guns would've solved that problem.

::: I am against gun control for all of the reasons listed by ETrundel, not for reasons that it would lead to socialism and genocide. I agree that it is hard to predict political change that would stem from gun control. His was a good summary of the gun control contreversy, so why was it shot down like that? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:35, 6 January 2009 (EST) P.S. I changed this section back to its original name.

:::: JArneal, it is a historical fact that gun control has led to socialism and genocide. Please learn with an open mind first, and then comment. Simple logic explains this historical fact: there are far more people against genocide than in favor of it, and if guns are widely owned then it's clear which side would win. Take the guns away, and there is nothing to stop genocide. One more point: "controversy", not "contreversy". Not a problem if someone is earnestly trying to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: That does make sense, but genocide usually targets the minority of people in a population, like in the most famous example of genocide, Hitler's final solution. In that situation, it is clear which side would win: Hitler's troops. In instances like Pol Pot's mass genocide, people who were killed were first isolated. It is unlikely that word of what was happening was widespread enough to encourage a revolution against the government. Guns would not have solved the problem. It is the regime that causes genocide, not gun control. I guess access to guns might have some minor effect in opposing genocide, but by the time an evil regime is in place, it's too late for those people unless there is foreign intervention. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 20:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== What is the conservative position on gun control? ==

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

'''I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism.''' The debate seems to often get
contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

'''In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes.''' The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture
and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html
On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are [[salvation|saved]] and
not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a
very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in
Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian
theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that
revolutions often deal with individual liberties. '''To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate.''' The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended
dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA
decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely
achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American
Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should
have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust
British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American
revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being
more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote
revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Logic, the [[Bible]], preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against [[gun control]]. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: User:Conservative, many [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]]. It depends in part on why someone is a [[YEC]], and also on how open his mind is to [[conservative]] values. If someone is a [[YEC]] based on [[materialism]], then that person is not likely to accept some of the abstract concepts of [[conservativism]]. If someone is a [[YEC]] because they dislike a religion that they perceive not to be a [[YEC]], then that person is as likely to be liberal as anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, logicians state that you must use the principle of weighing the total evidence. PJR is against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle plus takes a high view of Scripture. These are certainly not liberal views. Although I certainly like PJR and recommended he be made Sysop and have talked to him quite amicably via Skype several times, I do not know him well enough to say whether he is a conservative or moderate. At the same time, I do see you failing to address the anti-abortion and ant-homosexuality views of PJR as being indicative of you not having a good case as far as him being a liberal. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, I don't know PJR's full position on abortion or the [[homosexual agenda]]. I do know that the political positions he has taken, such as in support of [[gun control]], are [[liberal]]. I also know that a substantial percentage of [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]] and did vote for [[Obama]]. If one is drawn to [[YEC]] for [[materialism]] reasons, then that person will tend to be materialistic on other matters, such as [[economics]] and [[gun control]] and other types of government control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: I'm absolutely staggered that you can equate YEC with materialism! As Conservative and LowKey rightly point out, materialism presumes no supernatural, whereas YEC presumes the supernatural. They are complete opposites! I know that it's possible for people to hold two incompatible ideas, but these two are so opposite that it's difficult to imagine how anyone could, and I've never heard of a single person who does (and I know a lot of YECs). And to claim, as you do below, that "YEC is a material-focused viewpoint" is so totally contrary to the truth that it beggars belief that you would clam that!
::::::: Even apart from comments I've probably made on Conservapedia, in an e-mail that you received a copy of, I have made it clear that I oppose abortion and homosexuality. Your knowledge of my beliefs appears to be rather selective.
::::::: I also note that you refer to my "liberal" "political positions" (plural), yet name only one. Again this seems to be a case of maligning me based on one position that we disagree on, ignoring all the issues that we agree on.
::::::: The tangent of Obama is misleading also, given that (a) being an Aussie, I can't vote for Obama, (b) I find it very hard to believe that a significant number of YECs would vote for Obama, and (c) I have made it clear that I don't agree with Obama. Your basis for this seems to be a presumption that because I disagree with you on some claims about Obama, I am therefore an Obama supporter. This presumption is totally false.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, polls demonstrated that something like 30% of young evangelical Christians, and even higher percentages of other Christian denominations, voted for Obama. Many of them are YECs. So there is nothing startling or remarkable about the possibility that a YEC is [[liberal]]. Millions are. Given the additional info that a YEC supports gun control makes it highly likely that he is liberal on other positions too.

:::::::: It's not productive for me to discuss your other political positions when you seem unwilling yourself to state them. If you want to discuss them, then you have to explain them first. You say you're against abortion, but so do many liberals who favor taxpayer-funded abortion. Do you favor ''prohibiting'' abortion? Do you favor lowering taxes? Do you support more free enterprise, and less government? Do you oppose same-sex marriage? If you want to discuss your political views, then you have to describe them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::: Your claims about YECs voting for Obama are nothing more than assumptions based on simple averages, and you've completely sidestepped the point about YECs and materialists being completely incompatible.
::::::::: You are incorrect to claim that I am unwilling to state my other political positions, given that I have already stated a number of them. It is not my intention to ''discuss'' them here, as this is a page about gun control. But as ''you'' have brought them up, I will state them. First, I fail to see how a person who favours taxpayer-funded abortion can be ''against'' abortion. But here are my positions on the things that you question: I am opposed to abortion in all cases except where a choice has to be made between the life of the baby and the life of the mother. And yes, I favour prohibiting it. I favour lowering taxes. I support more free enterprise and less government. I oppose same-sex "marriage". Given that I agree with you on all those points, there should be no need to discuss them further, and I would hope that you will now acknowledge that I am no "liberal". Or will you instead ask further questions, trying to find something else to justify your opinion of me?
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::: Your conservative positions on those issues are welcome, but the rest of your posting is flawed. Many politicians do state they are against abortion, yet vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. I'm sure you have many in Australia who do that, and I wonder if you vote for them based on what they say.

:::::::::: Your claim that YECs and materialists are "completely incompatible" is illogical, and you haven't explained the incompatibility. As I said (and you didn't address), belief in an occasional divine intervention does not necessarily negate one's adherence to materialism otherwise. [[Thomas the Apostle]], for example, believed in [[Jesus]] based on materialism, not despite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::::::Andy, the incompatibly has been explained by three seperate editors. Pick one explanation, they all say pretty much the same thing, which just to make it easy to find is this: YEC is the explicit presupposition that a supernatural Creator supernaturally created the universe and told us how He did it by supernaturally inspiring human authors. Materialism is the explicit presupposition that nothing supernatural exists. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 10:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::::: Regarding abortions, I think we are talking past each other a little. I agree that some are ''personally'' "against" abortions, in that they would not choose it themselves, but would not impose that on others, so might support taxpayer-funding of it. This is probably what you meant. I was talking about those (such as me) who are genuinely ''opposed'' to abortions, as in believing abortions to be wrong.
::::::::::: I did explain the incompatibility: materialists reject the supernatural, YECs require it. You can't reject the supernatural and simultaneously believe that supernatural interventions occur. Thomas accepted that the risen Christ was really Jesus based on ''physical evidence'', not a materialistic worldview. They are not the same thing. And I did address that, in my post below replying to the comments that I though were made by RodWeathers. Could you now address the question that I mistakenly put to him, about the polls asking people if they were YECs.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::Andy, see comments in the section below called: "Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::Andy, I reread your post. YEC is a polar opposite from the philosophy of materialism which posits there is no supernatural entities. On the other hand, can a person who is YEC be materialistic? For example, be greedy? The answer is of course yes. I don't think you know enough about PJR to claim he is materialistic and logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. Furthermore, unless PJR is going to inherit a lot of money from a rich uncle if he remains a YEC or some other implausible scenario, I do not think you made a compelling case that PJR or many other people for that matter become YECs for materialistic reasons. Again, logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Conservative, YEC is a material-focused viewpoint. Some (not all) YECs are materialistic, and they are likely to take materialistic positions on other issues, such gun control and wealth redistribution. Put another way, they support or are indifferent about many of Obama's liberal positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 6 January 2009 (EST)
(outdent) YEC and materialism (the philosophical position, not greed) are mutually exclusive. The first begins with the explicit belief in a supernatural creator, the second begins with the explicit disbelief in anything supernatural. You argument holds no water at all. Please abandon the ad hominem attacks and address the serious attempts to improve the article. I am reminded of a Christian speaker I once heard who said "We are given the full armour of God, and too many of us spend most of our time polishing our armour or attacking one another." Instead of dismissing PJR's observations because you don't think he's conservative enough, address them specifically.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:11, 8 January 2009 (EST)
: Well put. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:: Just look at polling data and you'll see that millions of YECs are liberal and voted for Obama. You have free will to deny it, but it's as indisputable as 2+2=4.

:: The claim that YEC and materialism are "mutually exclusive" is likewise absurd. Divine intervention at the beginning (or otherwise) does not detract from materialism afterward. The polling data show that many YECs are very materialistic in their outlook, as are even more non-YECs. --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: I'm only familiar with "materialism" re. philosophy. What are materialist positions on gun control and wealth redistribution? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Materialism is the overemphasis on matter rather than principles. "Guns cause crime" is a materialistic falsehood. "Money causes injustice" is another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::: <s>RodWeathers</s> Andy, could you please point me to the polls that asked voters if they were YECs or not? Unless you do, I will presume that you are making the same sorts of assumptions that <s>Andy did</s> I commented on above.
::::: Thanks, though, for implicitly acknowledging that YEC and materialistic viewpoints are contradictory by inventing a contrived explanation to claim that they are not. Materialistic views do ''not'' allow for the supernatural at any time. Yes, there are some who believe that God started things off but then left them on their own (''almost'' a "materialism afterward" position), but these people are Deists, not YECs.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: That comment about polls is Andy's, not mine, but was missing a sig., which i've added. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:53, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: I'm curious, however. If YEC is materialistic, and bigbang+evolution is explicitly so, is there any non-materialistic origins theory? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to...... ==

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to to look studies which used the approach of [[regression analysis]] to study the matter of gun control.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation ==

Here is an excellent essay arguing that socialism is often advanced through excessive regulation and not merely through the state owning more and more property: http://gunowners.org/op0330.htm The essay argues that despite Thatcher selling off state owned enterprises the UK became more socialistic through excessive regulation and that gun control was a part of this mindset. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Sounds like an article worth reading!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I was doing a Google search and it appears as if the following may be true: When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK, the Firearms Act of 1988 was passed which I assume favored gun control given the context of the passage I read. Does anyone know if Thatcher (who was pretty conservative) was opposed or in favor of the FireArms act of 1988? If she was for the act, then I would argue that the road to more socialism may be often be the result of excessive regulation despite the state selling off state enterprises in the short term. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, it's irrelevant which position Thatcher took, who would have merely been reacting to media pressure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::Andy, Thatcher was known for a lot of things but being spineless was not one of them -two of her nicknames were "the iron lady" and Atilla the Hen". The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "Margaret Thatcher's conservative government responded to the killings by enacting the most draconian firearms act ever adopted in Britain, including outlawing semiautomatic weapons altogether."[http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books%20and%20News/Guns%20and%20Bobbies] Now you might not feel comfortable with conservatives passing gun control but it appears as if it happened here. I do think once should be a optimistic realist and the reality is that a government headed by a staunch conservative passed gun control in the UK. Of course, the question is still, "Does conservative principles allow for gun control laws to be passed". That is an entirely separate question. I do not think liberal governments adequately protect citizens so I am against stringent gun control control laws. I also see gun ownership as a means to help prevent genocide and a police state from abusing its citizens.I think the case of Thatcher bolsters PJR's argument that conservatives passed gun control in Australia. However, I do see where one can argue that Australian conservatives are really more political moderates on the whole since they have gun control and I believe they have socialized medicine as well. That is a debate I will leave to you and PJR!! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::''' Andy, I do think that at present the United States has one of the worst overall policies in the Western World when it comes to a gun control and allowing conditions that promote violence. ''' We allow the media to push gratuitous violence and desensitize people. We also allow the media to push sexual content which often leads to fatherless homes because it leads to out of marriage sex and the fathers leaving the mothers to hold the bag. And I have read that 70% of all rapist and murders come from fatherless homes and this data is largely mirrored here: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/fatherless.html ''' This policy to me is like allowing people to have gasoline, allowing the media to push dangerous ideas on how gasoline should be used, and then telling the police they have to deal with the situation the best they can.''' It is a foolish policy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

*More of this argument without end? The Supreme Court of the United States has decided this issue! Citizens have the ''absolute right to keep and bear arms and cannot be forbidden or be unreasonably stopped from doing so.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::TK, there are about 6 billion people who live outside the USA. And there is certainly nothing wrong with learning lessons from history as far as other nations. Next, the laws are always changing so there is nothing wrong with vigilance. With that said, I certainly am happy that gun ownership is still a right in the United States but we do have to reduce our societies level of violence because it is high compared to many nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

*We learned here, in America, to reject the Old World, and its ways. That said, I think we can all be more productive creating, rather than keeping this argument alive another month. The boss has had his say, so has everyone else. Repeating the same another hundred times isn't going to change anyone's mind. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Try correlating gun control vs. mass murder, and you'll see that the countries with the most effective confiscation of guns from their citizens had the highest rates of genocide.

It's also very hard for a dictator to invade a democratic country when the majority of its citizens are armed. Switzerland is not protected only by mountains and "neutrality". And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists.

Crime in NYC would go down dramatically if every law-abiding citizen were allowed to get a gun and carry it around with them, loaded. Especially in high-crime poverty-stricken areas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:''And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists'' If suicide bombers are at all effective in what they do, the first anybody knows about them is when they detonate their bombs. What use will these Uzi-toting maidens be then? [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Fred Hoyle

2009-01-15T14:58:27Z

LowKey: No need to play down the '74 Prize

'''Fred Hoyle''' (1915-2001) was a British [[astronomer]] who developed the [[steady state theory]] of [[cosmology]].
He was noted for his rejection of [[naturalistic]] theories of how the [[universe]] came into being.<ref>He supported the [[anthropic principle]], holding that there is a [[design in creation]]: the universe was designed in such a way as to produce life. [http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm]</ref>
Nobel Prize winner [[William Alfred Fowler]] wrote: "Fred Hoyle was the second great influence in my life. The grand concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first definitely established by Hoyle in 1946."<ref>http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm</ref> During a radio lecture, he coined the term "[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]" to ridicule the theory (which he disbelieved<ref>Hoyle held out against Big Bang theory, even post-1965, when the discovery of a microwave background in the universe led most cosmologists to favor it. [http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-54/iss-11/p75b.html Physics Today] obituary </ref>) that the universe began from an explosion.

Hoyle was best known for his seminal contributions to the theory of the structure of [[star]]s and on the origin of the chemical elements in stars. He was a joint proponent of the steady state model of the universe, which claims, in contradiction to the [[Biblical creation account]], that the universe had no beginning.

In 1983 the [[Nobel Prize]] committee insulted Hoyle by passing him over and giving the award to underlings for his work. "For ... one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of modern physics, he was ignored by the Nobel Prize committee which chose to reward others who had done lesser work in this field. Thus, the scientific establishment, which claims to seek truth dispassionately, treated one of its finest proponents with contempt."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jul/24/biography.features1</ref> In the same year Hoyle had concluded that the [[Archaeopteryx]] - then a favorite of promoters of [[evolution]] - was a fraud. Several years earlier, Hoyle had also condemned the exclusion of [[Jocelyn Bell Burnell]] from the 1974 Nobel Prize for Physics.

By 1946 Hoyle had formulated the original and still generally accepted idea that the elements are generated in evolving stars and injected into the interstellar medium by [[supernova]] explosions. In 1957 he collaborated with William Alfred Fowler, Margaret Burbidge and Geoffrey Burbidge on an epoch-making paper on the nucleosynthesis of elements in stars.<ref>http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0275%2FHoyle</ref>

{{quotebox|"The likelihood (probability) of the [[spontaneous generation|spontaneous formation]] of life from inanimate matter is one to number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole [[theory of evolution]]. There was no [[primeval soup]], neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fredrick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 148. <ref>http://www.discoveryevent.com/quotes1.htm</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413270a0.html Obituary: Fred Hoyle (1915–2001)] - ''Nature'' 413, 270 (20 September 2001)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hoyle, Fred}}

[[Category:Astronomers]]
[[Category:Former Atheists]]

Fred Hoyle

2009-01-15T14:57:13Z

LowKey: Is this better?

'''Fred Hoyle''' (1915-2001) was a British [[astronomer]] who developed the [[steady state theory]] of [[cosmology]].
He was noted for his rejection of [[naturalistic]] theories of how the [[universe]] came into being.<ref>He supported the [[anthropic principle]], holding that there is a [[design in creation]]: the universe was designed in such a way as to produce life. [http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm]</ref>
Nobel Prize winner [[William Alfred Fowler]] wrote: "Fred Hoyle was the second great influence in my life. The grand concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first definitely established by Hoyle in 1946."<ref>http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm</ref> During a radio lecture, he coined the term "[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]" to ridicule the theory (which he disbelieved<ref>Hoyle held out against Big Bang theory, even post-1965, when the discovery of a microwave background in the universe led most cosmologists to favor it. [http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-54/iss-11/p75b.html Physics Today] obituary </ref>) that the universe began from an explosion.

Hoyle was best known for his seminal contributions to the theory of the structure of [[star]]s and on the origin of the chemical elements in stars. He was a joint proponent of the steady state model of the universe, which claims, in contradiction to the [[Biblical creation account]], that the universe had no beginning.

In 1983 the [[Nobel Prize]] committee insulted Hoyle by passing him over and giving the award to underlings for his work. "For ... one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of modern physics, he was ignored by the Nobel Prize committee which chose to reward others who had done lesser work in this field. Thus, the scientific establishment, which claims to seek truth dispassionately, treated one of its finest proponents with contempt."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jul/24/biography.features1</ref> In the same year Hoyle had concluded that the [[Archaeopteryx]]- then a favorite of promoters of [[evolution]] - was a fraud. Independently, and years earlier, Hoyle condemned the exclusion of [[Jocelyn Bell Burnell]] from the 1974 Nobel Prize for Physics.

By 1946 Hoyle had formulated the original and still generally accepted idea that the elements are generated in evolving stars and injected into the interstellar medium by [[supernova]] explosions. In 1957 he collaborated with William Alfred Fowler, Margaret Burbidge and Geoffrey Burbidge on an epoch-making paper on the nucleosynthesis of elements in stars.<ref>http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0275%2FHoyle</ref>

{{quotebox|"The likelihood (probability) of the [[spontaneous generation|spontaneous formation]] of life from inanimate matter is one to number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole [[theory of evolution]]. There was no [[primeval soup]], neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fredrick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 148. <ref>http://www.discoveryevent.com/quotes1.htm</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413270a0.html Obituary: Fred Hoyle (1915–2001)] - ''Nature'' 413, 270 (20 September 2001)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hoyle, Fred}}

[[Category:Astronomers]]
[[Category:Former Atheists]]

Talk:Fred Hoyle

2009-01-15T14:54:39Z

LowKey: But he did denounce

Talk:Archaeopteryx

2009-01-15T01:12:29Z

LowKey: /* Second "criticism" */ new section

==Feduccia==
Amongst pro-evolution scientists Feduccia's research is considered to be completely disproven. Referencing his research without mentioning the dozens of papers that refute it makes the conservapedia appear biased and/or out of date. {{unsigned|token}}

== Italics ==

Folks, please. No matter what your view, it's proper scientific style to use italics. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 22:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Removed paragraph ==

I've removed the following paragraph because I question it's accuracy:
{{QuoteBox|More recently, CT scans of an ''Archaeopteryx'' braincase were compared to the brains of modern and more advanced fossil birds. It was demonstrated that the brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' is not like modern birds. Instead, the authors concluded that like its ankle, feet, and skull, the brain or ''Archaeopteryx'' is more like predatory dinosaurs than modern birds.}}
It referenced a paper that is not available freely on-line (it needs to be purchased), but the on-line abstract[http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/q5p612262q241205/?p=657022247b19465a9506b78afc612ddd&pi=0] says the following:
{{QuoteBox|Fossils preserving traces of soft anatomy are rare in the fossil record; even rarer is evidence bearing on the size and shape of sense organs that provide us with insights into mode of life. Here, we describe unique fossil preservation of an avian brain from the Volgograd region of European Russia. The brain of this Melovatka bird is similar in shape and morphology to those of known fossil ornithurines (the lineage that includes living birds), such as the marine diving birds ''Hesperornis'' and ''Enaliornis'', but documents a new stage in avian sensory evolution: acute nocturnal vision coupled with well-developed hearing and smell, developed by the Late Cretaceous (ca 90Myr ago). This fossil also provides insights into previous ‘bird-like’ brain reconstructions for the most basal avian ''Archaeopteryx''—reduction of olfactory lobes (sense of smell) and enlargement of the hindbrain (cerebellum) occurred subsequent to ''Archaeopteryx'' in avian evolution, closer to the ornithurine lineage that comprises living birds. The Melovatka bird also suggests that brain enlargement in early avians was not correlated with the evolution of powered flight.}}
That suggests to me that, contrary to the paragraph removed from the article, CT scans were done of a different bird, not of ''Archaeopteryx''.

If someone has access to the full paper and can confirm that the paragraph is accurate, it can go back in.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

The brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' had already been CT scanned, see here:http://www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/oncampus/02oc_issues/oc020702/oc_brain.html. ''Archaeopteryx'''s brain was not like modern birds, so it was harder to interpret; the new paper scanned an intermediate bird's fossil skull, which greatly helped paleontologists understand the orginal CT scan of ''Archaeopteryx'''s brain. It was not like that of modern birds, it is more like a ''Velociraptor'' or oviraptorid in organization.

When the first paper came out the press carried the headlines "Archaeopteryx has bird-like brain" because the orignal study onlyused an alligator, and Allosaurus (a meat-eating dinosaur not very close to birds) and a modern bird. When maniraptoran dinosaurs and other extint birds were examined, it became clear that Archaeopteryx had a brain that is sort of birdlike, but no more so than Velociraptor and it's other close cousins.

If you are going to remove actual peer-reviewd data because "it requires payment" (I don't like it either, but they have to make money somehow) while keeping easily-refuted information that has never made it to a scientific journal in your entries then you are making the conservapedia into a joke.{{unsigned|Token}}

: Interesting comment about peer review. Do you also feel that so-called "professors" who were not selected based on peer review should not be taken seriously?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:(replying to Token):
:*First, thanks for the additional information about the brain scans of ''Archaeopteryx'' being done earlier. It does clarify the situation somewhat.
:*However, I still can't see that the text I removed was justified in being there. The abstract of the paper doesn't seem to go as far as the removed content.
:*I did not remove data 'because "it requires payment"'. I removed it because I suspected that it was inaccurate and pending someone demonstrating its accuracy.
:*Your swipe about including "easily-refuted" information was less than helpful, given that you didn't say what information is supposedly "easily refuted".

:(to Aschlafly):
:Andy, there was nothing "liberal" about what you removed and changed in the article. Apart from Hoyle and a few isolated creationists basing their view on Hoyle, essentially nobody believes that the fossils have been faked and essentially everyone accepts that ''Archaeopteryx'' really existed. The only real dispute is over whether it was a true bird or an intermediate form.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Philip, many people (including books on the topic) consider the fossils to be fakes. Hoyle is the best [[British]] scientist of the 20th century, and he considered it a fake also. The evidence speaks for itself in suggesting forgery, just as other fossils (e.g., the bird-dinosaur National Geographic fossil) are fakes. You don't really think that an "Archaeopteryx" existed only in pro-evolution parts of England in Germany, do you??? That's the only source of these unusual "fossils".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
::: I would be interested in know who these "many people" and book are, because I know of very few. I agree that the late Fred Hoyle is not someone to be ignored, but I do believe that he was something of a loner on this issue (as he was on a number of issues), and the evidence has been reexamined and not just doesn't support, but actually refutes, his claims of forgery. To quote from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (whom you reference in your changes) referring to Dr. Menton whom you quote, he "totally reject[s] the charge of forgery. Dr Menton points out that the Archaeopteryx bones have tiny bumps where the feathers were attached to the bones by ligaments. This was unexpected, so impossible to attribute to a forgery. So it is simply wrong to say that the feathers are just imprints added to a dino skeleton.". That is quoted from [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3653/ here], and that article includes several other reasons for rejecting the claim of forgery. (Incidentally, it also refers to the brain scans of ''Archaeopteryx''.)
::: Many fossils are only found in particular locations around the world. The fact that the ''Archaeopteryx'' fossils are only found in two parts of Europe is not all that unusual.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:32, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: I've addressed this by expanding the paragraph, with citations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:32, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::Your additions don't really address my questions. Your additions don't say who these "many people" are (but see below), nor mention any books. You have not addressed that Drs. Sarfati and Menton totally reject the forgery charge, nor my answer to your question about where they were found.
:::::You did make reference to a "half dozen leading scientist", but without names, that's not a lot of use. However, I have tracked down what appears to be your source, the [http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist09.htm Creation Evolution Encyclopedia], and it lists R.S. Watkins, N.C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L.M. Spetner along with Hoyle. Okay, there were six scientists, not just Hoyle (and Wickramasinghe, whom I had been aware of).
:::::Have you checked the sources that are currently listed as Nos. 4, 5, and 6? Because the Creation Evolution Encyclopedia does ''not'' list them as supporting the argument. Instead, it lists them under an "also see" introduction. These sources clearly have more about the issue, but not necessarily any evidence supportive of the claims of Hoyle et. al.
:::::So what we have is a forgery claim by a small group of scientists who may or may not still hold that view (Hoyle is now dead), which is refuted not just by other evolutionists but also by creationists, including ones that you cite. Furthermore, I'm not sure that any of the six were qualified to know what they were talking about (Hoyle was an astronomer, for example), but some of the scientists who reject the hoax (such as anatomist Dr. Menton) are so qualified.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:29, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

== When even Creationist sites disagree... ==

I find it interesting to note that Answers in Genesis (which is cited as a reliable source in numerous articles here) goes as far as including "Archaeopteryx is a fraud" in their [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#archaeopteryx "Which arguments should ''definitely'' not be used?"] FAQ section and even published a dedicated article with the title [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp "Archaeopteryx is NOT a hoax"]

I believe that AiG has a good reason to include this specific accusation in their "Do not use!" list, so maybe we should try to work along those lines? In my eyes, it's usually a bad sign when evolutionists ''and'' Creationists disagree with a claim we make. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 17:44, 1 January 2008 (EST)

: I agree. The case for it being a fraud has been blown out of the water. However, someone seems to think that my view (and that of [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[Answers in Genesis]]) is liberal bias. (See the article's history). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:00, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:: [[Sir Fred Hoyle]] declared it a fraud. That's good enough for most people. To me, after reviewing his conclusion and the unlikely sources of these specimens, it appears to be a fraud just as the dinosaur-bird fossil was about ten years ago. And I don't think JakeC is really in agreement with the AiG that he cites. His pro-evolution bias shows through by falsely insisting this is a "Creationist" site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:44, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::: Umm, AiG, if that's what you are referring to, ''is'' a creationist site. And Fred Hoyle's opinion (on this particular matter) may be good enough for you, but not for other experts, including many of the world's leading creationists, who have re-examined the issue and found further evidence refuting Hoyle's claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:05, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::::I feel I must point out the following: "Answers in Genesis will not stock any books that promote the Archaeopteryx hoax idea, at least not without a disclaimer, because it is ''the truth which shall set you free'' (cf. John 8:32), not error." [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp]
::::The truth is - it was a bird, like all the other birds, created by God on the fifth day. Promoting the claim that part of God's creation is a fraud is a concept that erodes one's [[faith]] and gets people to believe in things from which disbelief in [[Christianity]] logically follows. [[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 20:13, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Although I agree with much of that, Andy is claiming that the Archaeopteryx fossil was a fake, not that part of God's creation was a fake. That is, in his mind, the bird Archaeopteryx is ''not'' part of God's creation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::Sorry, Andy, but simply calling Creationists "critics" (as you did in this article) is omitting information. I did get a good chuckle out of your ''"His pro-evolution bias shows through by falsely insisting this is a 'Creationist' site."'' claim, though. Like Philip said, that site ''is'' a creationist site. I know you're [[Discussion:Creationist|not a fan]] of the word, but it's used by creationists to describe themselves and each other, so I don't see the problem.
:::That aside, does it really matter if I personally agree with a specific source? I am able to research points of view for both sides of any debate, and I believe I can represent both sides fairly. As such, personal bias does not factor into my work. You seem to attack my person and not the point.
:::I merely noted that AiG is an accepted source here on CP and then noted that it lists Hoyle's claim in the "Do not use" list (CMI ''also'' features the article that argues against the hoax theory, btw). When a site that argues against evolution and an old Earth actively discourages people from spreading this claim, it's a clear warning signal to me. Nothing against Hoyle, but it appears that he was most likely wrong here. That's what modern experts from ''both'' sides of the creation/evolution discussion say. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:38, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::Edit to add: Like Philip, I assumed the "pro-evolution" comment was about me calling ''AiG'' a creationist site. I only now notice your "''this'' site" wording, and I got to say that I never labeled Conservapedia. My point was that it's ''always'' a bad sign when we claim something that experts from ''both'' sides of the debate declared to be wrong. Doesn't matter if our article or site is pro-Creation, pro-Evolution, pro-Facts, pro-Neutrality, or whatever. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:51, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Folks, JakeC called '''this''' site a creationist site. That's exactly what I said, yet everyone above misread it. I didn't read past the biased and inappropriate labeling by evolutionists in the responses above, which is done to try to smear anyone who dares criticize their theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:...could you please point out where I did so? I don't appreciate accusations like that without evidence. Please see my "edit to add" about my actual point in the initial post. It seems to me that your personal attacks and off-topic remarks are just shiny distractions to avoid discussing the issue itself. Note how your initial reply was roughly 50% personal remarks and 50% "I think Hoyle's reasoning is correct". Please read the AiG/CMI source (CMI link is actually listed in the article's Bibliography) about how scientists from both camps came to the conclusion that (and I cite) "it is simply wrong to say that the feathers are just imprints added to a dino skeleton" and that "Fred Hoyle is completely wrong". When faced with such a united front of scientists who disagree with Hoyle, we will need more backing than "Andrew Schlafly agrees with Hoyle". --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 21:08, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Andy, I wrote "if that's what you are referring to" because I did wonder if your use of the word "this" was a reference to Conservapedia, but as JakeC has now reiterated, he ''didn't'' label Conservapedia as a creationist site. He was referring to AiG as a creationist site. And what "biased and inappropriate labeling by evolutionists" was there. As far as I can tell, everything above was written by probable ''creationists''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:: JakeC's edit is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Archaeopteryx&diff=prev&oldid=362428 here], where he refers to a disagreement between "creationist sites," trying to goad Conservapedia (one of his so-called "creationist" sites) into conformity (or criticism of) another "creationist" site.

:: JakeC's argument reflects bias and is becoming a waste of time to discuss further. It's like demanding a person of one perceived ethnicity to explain why he disagrees with someone else of the same perceived ethnicity. Some might even call that bigotry. It's baseless anyway: Conservapedia is not a "creationist" site, a term used by evolutionists to smear anyone who disagrees with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:::...I don't get it, honestly. If you mean the headline (which is pretty much all that is left by now since I think I addressed any potential ambiguity in my "edit to add" post way up), that was meant as "When even Creationist sites disagree with our claim that aims at debunking an evolutionist argument, it's a bad sign" (as should be clear from the context provided by the post) and not as "When even Creationist sites disagree with each other (because I regard CP as a Creationist site), it's a bad sign". Talk about far-fetched... If I had known that you would desperately X-Ray my post in search for a distraction, I would have called the section "Creationists and evolutionists both think that Hoyle was wrong" or something.
:::Judging by the tremendous amount of bad faith and attacking my person, it's becoming clear to me that you have no argument to support your position (Remember? We were talking about Hoyle's claim and how modern scientists concluded that he was "completely wrong"). I would be offended if I wasn't so terribly amused. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 21:51, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:::: JakeC, I think you are a [[provocateur]], and have not seen a quality edit by you yet. Unless you do some quality edits soon I would expect your account to be blocked by a Sysop under our [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Andy, I took JakeC's reference to "creationist sites" disagreeing to be referring to other creationist sites that ''do'' still cling to Hoyle's now-discredited view. I'm now not so sure that's what he was referring to, but the point still remains that the argument—that Hoyle's claim of forgery is rejected by leading creationists (as well as evolutionists)—is true and valid. And even if you want to ignore him because you doubt his motives, I'm making the same point.
::::: And you didn't answer my question about "biased and inappropriate labeling by evolutionists".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:::::...okay, now I ''am'' offended, Andy.
:::::If my edits so far (155 ''mainspace'' edits in less than two weeks, spent to improve the style of articles and actively seek to find references for unreferenced articles; and don't even get me started on things like pointing out copyright violations, suggesting redirects, and providing insight about style issues) are so bad as to get me ''blocked'', then so be it.
:::::However, it appears to me that you're simply resorting to open threats now since I looked through your diversionary tactics of using personal attacks to distract from your inability to come up with a good argument. So if I get blocked, it will be because you are unwilling or unable to admit that you are wrong. And that block itself will be proof that you need to use your sysop powers (or gently nudge somebody else into doing so) to win a content discussion that was started in good faith.
:::::If - for some reason - these are really my Famous Last Words (*sniff*), then I want to give Philip a friendly pat on the back here. I wish you the best, man, and thanks for everything. :) That would be all. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 22:44, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::: JakeC, point me to several quality edits by you, if you can. I looked at your last 22 and found that over half were talk, 4 were edits that I had to revert, and the remainder seemed to be trivial. You seem to be a candidate for [[provocateur]] of the week. I encourage you to contribute quality edits ... or leave. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::Dear God, this is so terribly stupid... *shakes head*
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Confession&diff=prev&oldid=362532 Confession] - provided source.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Baidu_Baike&diff=prev&oldid=362506 Baidu Baike] - slight rewrite, more sourcing, see also talk for reasoning.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_rights_advocacy&diff=362440&oldid=353845 Homosexual rights advocacy] - provided source.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Angles&diff=prev&oldid=361687 Angles] - provided source.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=361457 Merge suggestion] which was later realized.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Quechua&diff=prev&oldid=360744 Quechua] - provided multiple sources and corrected facts.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&diff=prev&oldid=360698 Four Noble Truths] - provided source.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Harry_Potter&diff=prev&oldid=360671 Harry Potter] - replaced vague and hard-to-source claim with a more precise and sourced one along the same lines.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template_talk:Fact&diff=prev&oldid=360655 Template talk] to point out that an important template was broken.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=360615 Insight] about a style issue.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Papyrus&diff=prev&oldid=359583 Papyrus] - pointed out that a section was copy-pasted, replaced with rewritten and sourced version.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Asymmetric_Digital_Subscriber_Line&diff=prev&oldid=358275 ADSL] - started.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_Gonorrhea&diff=357984&oldid=343846 Homosexuality and Gonorrhea] - replacing broken source with working link, cited authority instead of secondary source (content remained the same)
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Delhi_Sultanate&diff=prev&oldid=357958 Delhi Sultanate] - pointed out copyright violation.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=American_Taliban&diff=prev&oldid=357953 American Taliban] - added source while pointing out the need of one.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheism_and_the_Problem_of_Evil&diff=prev&oldid=357950 Atheism and the Problem of Evil] - one of the cases where I improved the style of the references.
::::*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=357525&oldid=357515 Gun control] - added a new section and provided a source to replace a broken link. I think I also cleaned up the other references in that article... ah yes, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=357510&oldid=357497 here] we go.
::::I stopped looking at that point. There should be a few more (plus the few dozen or so edits where I touched up the formatting, corrected typos, etc.), but I think that should answer your attempt to drag this issue further and further away from the actual content of my initial post: What is your argument about Hoyle? Creation scientists ''and'' evolutionary scientists concluded that he was wrong there. What is your evidence that these modern experts independently came to the wrong conclusions? --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 23:26, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::::: I couldn't find a substantive contribution in your list. Do you really think fixing a broken link, though welcome, is a substantive edit? I hope not. Moreover, many of your edits have been of a [[provocateur]] variety, and I've had to revert some them.

::::: I can't see what your point is here, for example. The entry is factual and presents various views of the [[Archaeopteryx]]. Are you suggesting we delete the esteemed [[Sir Fred Hoyle]]'s conclusion that it was a fraud, based on his firsthand examination of the specimens with a team of top scientists??? As with many [[provocateur]]s, it's often difficult to see what their point is. I can't see your point here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: It reads as though Hoyle's opinion is correct, rather than as a now-discredited idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:16, 2 January 2008 (EST)

::::::: Evolutionists and some creationists may disagree with Hoyle's firsthand conclusions, but I'm not aware of any discrediting. Is someone saying Hoyle lied or made scientific mistakes that affect his conclusion? Hoyle, by the way, was the preeminent [[British]] scientist of the 20th century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 2 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::I'm faced with two views:
::::::::#Hoyle (astronomer), in the '80s, declares fossils to be fake.
::::::::#Menton (creationist anatomist) and Feduccia (paleornithologist), among others, use modern techniques and insights of fossils and argue that Hoyle's conclusion was incorrect.
::::::::I might feel a bit more conflicted, but it appears as if this wasn't the first time that Hoyle was most likely incorrect: Hoyle was an astronomer (Since when are ''astronomers'' experts when it comes to bird fossils?) who believed that the influenza epidemics were caused by particles of meteor streams which conveyed the virus to Earth. He also believed that the primeval molecules (which were the origin of life on Earth) came from outer space and that there was continuous creation (Steady State Theory).
::::::::Sorry, but the man's been proven wrong before (for example, discovery of cosmic microwave background led to the pretty much complete defeat of the Steady State Theory), and when modern-day experts in the fields of anatomy and paleornithology (study of bird evolution and fossil birds) disagree with an astronomer's conclusion from 20 years ago, I tend to go with the modern experts. The article should at least state clearly that Hoyle's field of expertise is astronomy (and not the study of fossils, birds, or bird fossils) and that modern experts in those fields reject his claims. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:55, 2 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: JakeC, push [[evolution]] somewhere else. Hoyle was the greatest [[British]] scientist of the 20th century, and unless you have something factual to say about his findings, do something else productive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 2 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::One should perhaps approach Hoyle with some caution. He promoted the [[theory]] that life evolved in [[Outer space|space]], spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that [[evolution]] on earth is driven by a steady influx of [[virus]]es arriving via [[comet]]s. We all know that [[extraterrestrial life]] is one of many [[Liberal Myths]]. [[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 21:49, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Something factual? The [[Answers in Genesis]] [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp article] on this issue outlines several reasons why Hoyle's his conclusion was incorrect; the [http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=10 Creation Science Movement ] agrees as well. I can continue looking for more factual information if you'd like. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:01, 2 January 2008 (EST)

: Feebasfactor, I don't have time to hunt down every link that someone puts up on a talk page. I've got other issues to address. If you can't explain the "flaws" in Hoyle's work in your own words here, then forget about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 2 January 2008 (EST)

::Ok, sure thing!
::*"Archaeopteryx bones have tiny bumps where the feathers were attached to the bones by ligaments. This was unexpected, so impossible to attribute to a forgery."
::*Limestone often forms unique dendritic (tree-like) patterns throughout; these patterns match up on both slabs.
::*The skeleton's vertebrae and pelvis indicate that a unique lung design - avian air sacs - was already present in Archaeopteryx, despite being supposedly the earliest bird. Modern analysis of the skull also indicate was remarkably present to that of modern day birds. These are not things an evolutionists would like to imply in a forgery!

::Keep in mind, these aren't my arguments at all - after all, I'm no paleontologist! I'm merely reiterating/paraphrasing the arguments from those more knowledgeable, like the authors at [[Answers in Genesis]]. In case you want to check their factuality, their sources and references are also listed in the link I gave - but of course, I can always look for more sources, or more arguments, if you'd like. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:23, 2 January 2008 (EST)

::RE: Sorry! You asked for "flaws" specifically, I just gave general reasons why Archeopteryx is not a hoax. I will keep looking! In the meantime, please consider the evidence and arguments I've presented so far - after all, they are probably not tainted by [[evolutionist]] [[bias]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:29, 2 January 2008 (EST)

"''Is someone saying Hoyle lied or made scientific mistakes that affect his conclusion?''": You've listed two possibilities there. There's actually (at least) four possibilities:
# Hoyle lied
# Hoyle was incompetent (in the layman's sense of that word)
# Hoyle made scientific mistakes, despite his best efforts
# Further evidence that wasn't available to Hoyle now shows him to be incorrect.
To address each of those in turn:
# I don't think anybody is saying that Hoyle lied.
# One or two above do seem to suggest that Hoyle was incompetent. I for one don't agree with this.
# Perhaps Hoyle did make some mistakes, despite his best efforts. Whether or not he was "preeminent", I agree that Hoyle was a respected scientist and not one to be lightly dismissed. But nobody's perfect, so there's no shame if he inadvertently made mistakes. Everyone does. And his mistake may have been nothing more than overlooking some evidence that contradicted his views.
# Further evidence that Hoyle didn't have available is at least a big part of the answer, if not the whole answer. Even if he made no mistakes, this further evidence shows that Hoyle's conclusion was incorrect.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:05, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: It wasn't just Hoyle, though he's impressive enough alone. It was a team of scientists who examined the specimens firsthand. Have their critics done that? I'm open to valid, meaningful criticisms of their findings, but I don't see any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:23, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:: Yes, it was a team, although as has been pointed out, Hoyle was an astronomer/astrophysicist, so his competency (in the correct sense of the word) in this matter is suspect. The same applies to the rest—as far as I can find out, the rest were mathematicians, a physicist, a medical doctor, and a photographer. By way of contrast, those that reject the fraud claim include (as mentioned above) an anatomist and a paleornithologist. And some of those opposed to the fraud claim ''have'' examined the specimens first hand. As for valid arguments against fraud, Feebasfactor supplied some above. Incidentally, what appears to be your [http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist09.htm source] claims that the team comprised "some of the leading scientists in England", which is an interesting claim to make about a photographer, at least one of the team was from Wales, and one was from Israel. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Second "criticism" ==

The whole second criticism is actually not a criticism of the Archaeopteryx, or the fossil specimens. It is really a refutation of the commonly accepted evolutionist interpretations. I have no quick way to correct this in mind, as it would probably require a rewrite of the whole section. In fact both "criticisms" could be better described as controversies. Anyone got any suggestions?[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 20:12, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Fred Hoyle

2009-01-15T01:07:11Z

LowKey: I hopefully left Andy's point intact.

Fred Hoyle

2009-01-15T01:00:22Z

LowKey: spelling

'''Fred Hoyle''' (1915-2001) was a British [[astronomer]] who developed the [[steady state theory]] of [[cosmology]].
He was noted for his rejection of [[naturalistic]] theories of how the [[universe]] came into being.<ref>He supported the [[anthropic principle]], holding that there is a [[design in creation]]: the universe was designed in such a way as to produce life. [http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm]</ref>
Nobel Prize winner [[William Alfred Fowler]] wrote: "Fred Hoyle was the second great influence in my life. The grand concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first definitely established by Hoyle in 1946."<ref>http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm</ref> During a radio lecture, he coined the term "[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]" to ridicule the theory (which he disbelieved<ref>Hoyle held out against Big Bang theory, even post-1965, when the discovery of a microwave background in the universe led most cosmologists to favor it. [http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-54/iss-11/p75b.html Physics Today] obituary </ref>) that the universe began from an explosion.

Hoyle was best known for his seminal contributions to the theory of the structure of [[star]]s and on the origin of the chemical elements in stars. He was a joint proponent of the steady state model of the universe, which claims, in contradiction to the [[Biblical creation account]], that the universe had no beginning.

In 1983 the [[Nobel Prize]] committee insulted Hoyle by passing him over and giving the award to underlings for his work. "For ... one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of modern physics, he was ignored by the Nobel Prize committee which chose to reward others who had done lesser work in this field. Thus, the scientific establishment, which claims to seek truth dispassionately, treated one of its finest proponents with contempt."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jul/24/biography.features1</ref> In the same year Hoyle had been denouncing the [[Archaeopteryx]] as a fraud, then a favorite of promoters of [[evolution]]. Hoyle had also condemned the exclusion of [[Jocelyn Bell Burnell]] from the 1974 Nobel Prize for Physics.

By 1946 Hoyle had formulated the original and still generally accepted idea that the elements are generated in evolving stars and injected into the interstellar medium by [[supernova]] explosions. In 1957 he collaborated with William Alfred Fowler, Margaret Burbidge and Geoffrey Burbidge on an epoch-making paper on the nucleosynthesis of elements in stars.<ref>http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0275%2FHoyle</ref>

{{quotebox|"The likelihood (probability) of the [[spontaneous generation|spontaneous formation]] of life from inanimate matter is one to number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole [[theory of evolution]]. There was no [[primeval soup]], neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fredrick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 148. <ref>http://www.discoveryevent.com/quotes1.htm</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413270a0.html Obituary: Fred Hoyle (1915–2001)] - ''Nature'' 413, 270 (20 September 2001)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hoyle, Fred}}

[[Category:Astronomers]]
[[Category:Former Atheists]]

Talk:Fred Hoyle

2009-01-15T00:45:18Z

LowKey:

Fred Hoyle

2009-01-15T00:42:30Z

LowKey: Improved a little more, it's highly disputed (by creationists) that it actually was a fraud.

'''Fred Hoyle''' (1915-2001) was a British [[astronomer]] who developed the [[steady state theory]] of [[cosmology]].
He was noted for his rejection of [[naturalistic]] theories of how the [[universe]] came into being.<ref>He supported the [[anthropic principle]], holding that there is a [[design in creation]]: the universe was designed in such a way as to produce life. [http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm]</ref>
Nobel Prize winner [[William Alfred Fowler]] wrote: "Fred Hoyle was the second great influence in my life. The grand concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first definitely established by Hoyle in 1946."<ref>http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm</ref> During a radio lecture, he coined the term "[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]" to ridicule the theory (which he disbelieved<ref>Hoyle held out against Big Bang theory, even post-1965, when the discovery of a microwave background in the universe led most cosmologists to favor it. [http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-54/iss-11/p75b.html Physics Today] obituary </ref>) that the universe began from an explosion.

Hoyle was best known for his seminal contributions to the theory of the structure of [[star]]s and on the origin of the chemical elements in stars. He was a joint proponent of the steady state model of the universe, which claims, in contradiction to the [[Biblical creation account]], that the universe had no beginning.

In 1983 the [[Nobel Prize]] committed insulted Hoyle by passing him over and giving the award to underlings for his work. "For ... one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of modern physics, he was ignored by the Nobel Prize committee which chose to reward others who had done lesser work in this field. Thus, the scientific establishment, which claims to seek truth dispassionately, treated one of its finest proponents with contempt."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jul/24/biography.features1</ref> In the same year Hoyle had been denouncing the [[Archaeopteryx]] as a fraud, then a favorite of promoters of [[evolution]]. Hoyle had also condemned the exclusion of [[Jocelyn Bell Burnell]] from the 1974 Nobel Prize for Physics.

By 1946 Hoyle had formulated the original and still generally accepted idea that the elements are generated in evolving stars and injected into the interstellar medium by [[supernova]] explosions. In 1957 he collaborated with William Alfred Fowler, Margaret Burbidge and Geoffrey Burbidge on an epoch-making paper on the nucleosynthesis of elements in stars.<ref>http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0275%2FHoyle</ref>

{{quotebox|"The likelihood (probability) of the [[spontaneous generation|spontaneous formation]] of life from inanimate matter is one to number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole [[theory of evolution]]. There was no [[primeval soup]], neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fredrick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 148. <ref>http://www.discoveryevent.com/quotes1.htm</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413270a0.html Obituary: Fred Hoyle (1915–2001)] - ''Nature'' 413, 270 (20 September 2001)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hoyle, Fred}}

[[Category:Astronomers]]
[[Category:Former Atheists]]

Fred Hoyle

2009-01-15T00:33:02Z

LowKey:

'''Fred Hoyle''' (1915-2001) was a British [[astronomer]] who developed the [[steady state theory]] of [[cosmology]].
He was noted for his rejection of [[naturalistic]] theories of how the [[universe]] came into being.<ref>He supported the [[anthropic principle]], holding that there is a [[design in creation]]: the universe was designed in such a way as to produce life. [http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm]</ref>
Nobel Prize winner [[William Alfred Fowler]] wrote: "Fred Hoyle was the second great influence in my life. The grand concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first definitely established by Hoyle in 1946."<ref>http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm</ref> During a radio lecture, he coined the term "[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]" to ridicule the theory (which he disbelieved<ref>Hoyle held out against Big Bang theory, even post-1965, when the discovery of a microwave background in the universe led most cosmologists to favor it. [http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-54/iss-11/p75b.html Physics Today] obituary </ref>) that the universe began from an explosion.

Hoyle was best known for his seminal contributions to the theory of the structure of [[star]]s and on the origin of the chemical elements in stars. He was a joint proponent of the steady state model of the universe, which claims, in contradiction to the [[Biblical creation account]], that the universe had no beginning.

In 1983 the [[Nobel Prize]] was awarded not to Hoyle but to underlings for his work. "For ... one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of modern physics, he was ignored by the Nobel Prize committee which chose to reward others who had done lesser work in this field. Thus, the scientific establishment, which claims to seek truth dispassionately, treated one of its finest proponents with contempt."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jul/24/biography.features1</ref>Hoyle had condemned the exclusion of [[Jocelyn Bell Burnell]] from the 1974 Nobel Prize for Physics.

By 1946 Hoyle had formulated the original and still generally accepted idea that the elements are generated in evolving stars and injected into the interstellar medium by [[supernova]] explosions. In 1957 he collaborated with William Alfred Fowler, Margaret Burbidge and Geoffrey Burbidge on an epoch-making paper on the nucleosynthesis of elements in stars.<ref>http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0275%2FHoyle</ref>

{{quotebox|"The likelihood (probability) of the [[spontaneous generation|spontaneous formation]] of life from inanimate matter is one to number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole [[theory of evolution]]. There was no [[primeval soup]], neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fredrick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 148. <ref>http://www.discoveryevent.com/quotes1.htm</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413270a0.html Obituary: Fred Hoyle (1915–2001)] - ''Nature'' 413, 270 (20 September 2001)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hoyle, Fred}}

[[Category:Astronomers]]
[[Category:Former Atheists]]

Fred Hoyle

2009-01-15T00:31:08Z

LowKey: Hoyle's criticism of 1974 Nobel Prize for Physics

'''Fred Hoyle''' (1915-2001) was a British [[astronomer]] who developed the [[steady state theory]] of [[cosmology]].
He was noted for his rejection of [[naturalistic]] theories of how the [[universe]] came into being.<ref>He supported the [[anthropic principle]], holding that there is a [[design in creation]]: the universe was designed in such a way as to produce life. [http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm]</ref>
Nobel Prize winner [[William Alfred Fowler]] wrote: "Fred Hoyle was the second great influence in my life. The grand concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first definitely established by Hoyle in 1946."<ref>http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hoyle.htm</ref> During a radio lecture, he coined the term "[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]" to ridicule the theory (which he disbelieved<ref>Hoyle held out against Big Bang theory, even post-1965, when the discovery of a microwave background in the universe led most cosmologists to favor it. [http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-54/iss-11/p75b.html Physics Today] obituary </ref>) that the universe began from an explosion.

Hoyle was best known for his seminal contributions to the theory of the structure of [[star]]s and on the origin of the chemical elements in stars. He was a joint proponent of the steady state model of the universe, which claims, in contradiction to the [[Biblical creation account]], that the universe had no beginning.

In 1983 the [[Nobel Prize]]was awarded not to Hoyle but to underlings for his work. "For ... one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of modern physics, he was ignored by the Nobel Prize committee which chose to reward others who had done lesser work in this field. Thus, the scientific establishment, which claims to seek truth dispassionately, treated one of its finest proponents with contempt."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jul/24/biography.features1</ref>Hoyle had condemned the exclusion of [[Jocelyn Bell Burnell]] from the 1974 Nobel Prize for Physics.

By 1946 Hoyle had formulated the original and still generally accepted idea that the elements are generated in evolving stars and injected into the interstellar medium by [[supernova]] explosions. In 1957 he collaborated with William Alfred Fowler, Margaret Burbidge and Geoffrey Burbidge on an epoch-making paper on the nucleosynthesis of elements in stars.<ref>http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0275%2FHoyle</ref>

{{quotebox|"The likelihood (probability) of the [[spontaneous generation|spontaneous formation]] of life from inanimate matter is one to number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole [[theory of evolution]]. There was no [[primeval soup]], neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fredrick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 148. <ref>http://www.discoveryevent.com/quotes1.htm</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6853/full/413270a0.html Obituary: Fred Hoyle (1915–2001)] - ''Nature'' 413, 270 (20 September 2001)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hoyle, Fred}}

[[Category:Astronomers]]
[[Category:Former Atheists]]

Archaeopteryx

2009-01-15T00:18:08Z

LowKey:

{{Taxonomy
|name=Archaeopteryx (extinct)
|image=Archaeopteryx1.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=Vertebrata
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Aves
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=
|order=Archaeopterygiformes
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=Archaeopterygidae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=Archaeopteryx
|subgenus=
|species=A. siemensii
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''''Archaeopteryx''''', an extinct [[bird]] known from a small number of [[fossil]], is considered by evolutionist biologists to be the first species of [[bird]] to appear on Earth.<ref>"Archaeopteryx is the oldest bird in the fossil record." - John Wells [http://www.discovery.org/a/1106] </ref>

''Archaeopteryx'' is sometimes presented as evidence of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of [[reptile]]s, making it appear to be a so-called "[[transitional form]]" between reptiles and birds.

There are two criticisms of the ''Archaeopteryx''. One criticism is that the fossils are fraudulent. Another criticism is that even if ''Archaeopteryx'' existed, it was a true bird and not a transitional form suggesting evolution.

== Specimens ==
There are currently ten known specimens of ''Archaeopteryx''<ref>Wikipedia claims an eleventh specimen, but only lists ten.</ref>.
All have been found in the limestone of the Solnhofen area in Germany.<ref name="CFM">Magovern</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
! Speciman || When found || Location fount || People involved || Current location || Comments
|-
| Feather<ref name="CN">Nedlin, 1999 (The TalkOrigins Archive)</ref> || 1860 || Near Solnhofen || Described by H. von Meyer || Humboldt Museum für Naturkunde in [[Berlin]] || Single feather only.
|-
| London specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1861 || Near Langenaltheim || Announced by H. v Meyer || [[British Museum of Natural History]], [[London]] || Missing the head and neck
|-
| Berlin specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1877 || Near Blumenberg || Described by W. Dames || Humboldt Museum für Naturkunde || The most complete specimen
|-
| Maxberg specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1958 || Near Langenaltheim || Found and owned by Eduard Opitsch || Was in Maxberg Museum but now missing || Torso
|-
| Haarlem Specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1855 || Near Riedenburg || Described by H. von Meyer || Teylers Museum, [[Haarlem]] || Not classified as ''Archaeopteryx'' until 1970. Not very complete
|-
| Eichstätt Specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1951 || Near Workerszell || Described by Peter Wellnhofer || Jura Museum, [[Eichstätt]] || Smallest specimen
|-
| Solnhofen Specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1960s || Near Eichstätt || Described by Wellnhofer || Bürgermeister-Müller-Museum in Solnhofen || Missing some pieces, but fairly complete
|-
| Munich specimen or Solnhofen-Aktien-Verein specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1991 || Near Langenaltheim || Described by Wellnhofer || Paläontologisches Museum München, [[Munich]] ||
|-
| Thermopolis specimen<ref>The Wyoming Dinosaur Center]</ref><ref>Hartman, 2005</ref> || || || || Wyoming Dinosaur Center in Thermopolis, [[Wyoming]] || Had been privately owned in Switzerland
|}

==First criticism: fraud==

In 1983, a half-dozen leading [[British]] scientists including [[Fred Hoyle|Sir Fred Hoyle]] carefully studied the two best ''Archaeopteryx'' specimens, front and back, and declared them to be fakes.<ref>Sarfati, 2000</ref> They discovered that the front and back slabs of each specimen do not match.<ref name="four">British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985). W.J. Broad, "Authenticity of Bird Fossil is Challenged," N.Y. Times C1, C14 (May 7, 1985). T. Nield, "Feathers Fly Over Fossil 'Fraud'," New Scientist 1467:49-50. G. Vines, "Strange Case of Archaeopteryx 'Fraud'," New Scientist 1447:3.</ref>
They found that an alteration had been made to the left wing as depicted in an 1863 drawing.<ref name="four" />
They concluded that the feather markings had been imprinted by hand.<ref name="four" />
They also found that etching process had used cement blobs.<ref name="four" />
When the scientists requested the ability to use an electronic microscope and carbon-14 dating, the museum refused and withdrew the specimens from the scientists.<ref name="four" />
The same [[British]] Museum had been responsible for the [[Piltdown Man]] fraud.

The [[Nobel Prize]] committee punished Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] for exposing this fraud by passing him over and giving its award to his underling for work that Hoyle was the undisputed leader on.

==Second criticism: not a transitional==
The second criticism of the ''Archaeopteryx'', that it is not a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of anatomist Dr. David Menton<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp</ref> suggesting that ''Archaeopteryx'' is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all. In 1994, an article explained that the ''Archaeopteryx'' was essentially a flying bird, with a large [[cerebellum]] and [[visual cortex]]. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not (the South American hoatzin, ''Opisthocomus hoazin'', also shares with ''Archaeopteryx'' clawed digits in its wings, albeit as juveniles). Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref name="cw94" />

== Evidence for evolution? ==
In 1993, an article was published in ''Science'' magazine arguing that the ''Archaeopteryx'' had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings<ref>Feduccia, 1993</ref>

While most evolutionary scientists agree that the flight feathers of ''Archaeopteryx'' were essentially modern, several papers since have argued against Feduccia's claims about the anatomy of ''Archaeopteryx''<ref>"The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx," ''Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society,'' 149:97-116, 2007.</ref> Specimens such as the Thermoplis Specimen <ref>Wyoming Dinosaur Center.</ref> are thought to clearly show that the arms, wishbone, tail, feet, hips, and palate of ''Archaeopteryx'' were more like meat-eating theropod dinosaurs than modern birds.

The brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex.<ref name="cw94">Wieland, 1994</ref>
Critics point out that its teeth are irrelevant to its alleged transitional status, as a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not.<ref name="cw94" />
Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved.
In most vertebrates, including many reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref name="cw94" />

== Bibliography ==

* Anon., [http://www.wyodino.org/research/?item=archaeopteryx ''Archaeopteryx'': The Thermopolis Specimen] The Wyoming Dinosaur Center
* Bakalar, Nicholas, [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1201_051201_archaeopteryx.html Earliest Bird Had Feet Like Dinosaur, Fossil Shows], National Geographic News, 1 December, 2005
* Feduccia, A., "Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx," ''Science'', 259(5096):790-793, February 5, 1993 ([http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819930205%293%3A259%3A5096%3C790%3AEFCGIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1 abstract])
* [[Duane Gish|Gish, Duane]], [http://www.icr.org/article/321/ As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won't Fly] ''Impact'', September 1, 1989
* Hartman, Scott, [http://skeletaldrawing.com/Archaeopteryx/archaeo.htm Clarification statement on Thermopolis specimen] 1st December 2005 (The Wyoming Dinosaur Center).
* Magovern, Charlie and Florence, [http://www.stonecompany.com/fossils/casts/archaeopteryx/data.html Archaeopteryx]
* Nedlin, Chris, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#specimens All About Archaeopteryx], 1999 (The TalkOrigins Archive)
* [[Jonathan Sarfati|Sarfati, Jonathan]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3653 Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link”], Creation Ministries International, March 24, 2000
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], Chapter 4 of ''Refuting Evolution''.
* [[Carl Wieland|Wieland, Carl]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp Archaeopteryx], ''Creation'' 1(1):12–16, June 1978.
* Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/909/ Bird evolution flies out the window], ''Creation'' 16(4):16–19, September 1994

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Extinct Animals]]
[[Category:Birds]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2009-01-13T02:36:00Z

LowKey: /* Demons and Devils */

[[Image:Dungeons_and_Dragons.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A ''Dungeons & Dragons'' game in progress.]]
'''Dungeons & Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a [[role-playing]] game with a medieval theme featuring [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragon]]s. Players take the role of characters who solve a series of heroic adventures or quests. Largely considered harmless fantasy, the game has attracted some criticism.

Players do not compete with one another; rather, the players cooperate to achieve goals and objectives while a referee, in this case called the ''dungeon master'' (DM) or ''game master'' (GM), interprets rules and adjudicates the success or failure of the players' efforts.

The game was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules (TSR). Most of those rules and many of the subsequent rules were authored by [[Gary Gygax]]. There are some who claim that [[Dave Arneson]] was the actual "inventor" of D&D, but this claim is disputed, not least by the fact that many references were authored by Gygax. The game was eventually sold to [[Wizards of the Coast]], a division of Hasbro.<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

In the late seventies the game's popularity exploded and it can rightly be said that the game is now a part of American culture. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' spawned countless variations and permutations, but during the earliest days of the game's growth, there were accusations that the game contributed to Satanic worship, teen suicide and general moral depravity. These criticisms have largely been addressed and the game remains controversial to only a tiny minority of Americans.

The 4th Edition of the game is the most recent, released in 2008.

==D&D Terminology==
Because D&D was a revolutionary game, it developed its own unique set of terminology to describe certain concepts in the game. Here's a quick list of important game terms which may be important to understand the game and its impact on American society.

::* ''Dungeon Master'' --- The Dungeon Master (DM) is not the player's opponent or ally, but is the game's referee. As the referee, it is the DM's responsibility to adjudicate the results player's actions. Additionally, the DM must play the role of monsters and the player's opponents. The DM has a duty to make the game fair, fun and playable. Many derivative games refer to this player as the Game Master or GM.
::* ''Player'' --- Any participant in the game that is not the DM.
::* ''Player Character'' --- The player character (or character) is the player's in-game persona. The character is most usually a heroic archetype such as a warrior, priest, wizard or rogue of some kind. The game allows for each archetype (called a "class") to possess unique skills and powers. If the player character survives the game session, the character can advance in experience and acquire higher levels and powers.
::* ''Monster'' --- A monster is any creature or in game character who may provide a challenge to the player characters. Many ''monsters'' like dragons or giants are monstrous, but others are fantastic such as pixies or unicorns. The DM chooses the actions of monsters.
::* ''Campaign'' --- In traditional games, the game ends and the game session ends. In D&D, the game continues through multiple sessions with the game always picking up where the last session ended. A series of game sessions that have some internal logic or structure is called a ''campaign''.
::* ''Spells'' --- In D&D, the term ''spells'' describe imaginary powers bestowed to certain player characters. This would be analogous to [[Gandalf]]'s fireworks or [[Merlin]]'s enchantments. In the game, spells are designed to mimic the powers and abilities found in fantasy literature and have no further relation to [[witchcraft]] or anything occult.
::* ''Experience Points'' --- Experience Points or XP are a metric representing the number of the heroic actions of a player character has achieved in a given campaign. The more XP a character acquires, the more powers and abilities the character has in the game. [[Image:dnddice.jpg|thumb|right|Some of the unusual dice required to play Dungeons & Dragons.]]
::* ''d20'' --- Actions and combat in D&D are most often resolved by rolling polyhedral [[dice]]. While standard dice are six-sided cubes, polyhedral dice have can have 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, or 4 sides. To distinguish between dice the standard nomenclature is ''d#'' where the # indicates the number of sides on the die. The d20 is the most commonly rolled die in D&D.

==Game play==
''Dungeons & Dragons'' is a free-form game in which a referee (the Dungeon Master) describes a situational problem to the players and then the players reply with any imaginable response. The exploits of players can occur in any fantasy setting but at some point the adventure often occurs in a ''dungeon'' or subterranean locale not unlike ''[[Khazad-dûm|Moria]]'' in [[Tolkien]]'s ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''. For example a DM might say to the players, "You have arrived the edge of a deep pit. The pit is so deep as to prevent you from seeing the bottom and so wide as to look impossible to jump. Far below you hear hissing and rustling as if a thousand poisonous snakes await you in the darkness."

Depending upon how motivated the players are to continue in this direction, the players might ask the DM various interrogatories such as "Is it possible to walk along the edge of the pit and continue down the passage?" or "Is there anything on the opposite side of the pit to which we might be able to tie a rope?"

Next the players will decide what course of actions their characters will take. Each player tries to take advantage of his character's unique talents. For example, the player of the rogue will know that his character is skilled at climbing walls. By jamming his fingers and toes into the cracks in the mortar, the rogue can negotiate along the wall to the opposite side. If the character's actions are reasonable and relatively easy to accomplish the DM allows for them to happen without further comment. If the action is more outrageous, or risky, the DM consults rules and conventions to determine which dice will govern the success of the action.

At the end of each gaming sessions, the DM grants all players a number of Experience Points (XP's) to represent the player accomplishments. When the character has acquired enough Experience Points, the character can gain more powers and abilities.

===Alignment System===
Because D&D players can basically do "anything" there are moral implications to the choices players make. To provide a frame of reference and to help the game make sense Gygax devised an alignment system. All characters are required to choose an ''alignment'' and the character must adhere to the beliefs of that alignment. Similarly, all monsters have alignments and thus their actions can be predictable and make sense.

"Good" characters strive to do acts of goodness and while avoiding actions which are hurtful to others. "Evil" characters think only of their own needs. Animals and certain other creatures don't care much about good or evil. At the same time "Lawful" characters believe that it is important to adhere to the rule of law, while "Chaotic" characters are more concerned with personal freedoms than with laws. Some characters do not care whether an action is lawful or chaotic, but only whether it is good or evil. By combining these two frameworks, we arrive at the nine alignments: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral ("neutral neutral"), chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

These alignments help a player separate what the player or referee would do in a given situation from how the character or monster might react in the same situation. Some DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game, though the rules do not expressly require that players choose good characters.

In the original versions of the game, only the "ethical" (Law/Chaos) axis of morality was present. The "moral" (good/evil) axis was added in later editions. 4th Edition removes the axis concept, resulting in the alignments lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.

===Components of a Character===
A character is described in detail on a "character sheet" where the player records important facts about the character. This includes the character's "race", vocation, unique skills, and numerical ratings of the character's attributes.

In this case, "race" refers to a race from fantasy such as an elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling--effectively used as an archaic term for "species". The races which are allowed in the game vary from DM to DM according to the tastes of players and the setting that the DM has devised. The vocation or "class" of the character refers to the fantasy archetype the player wishes to play, e.g. wizard, barbarian, rogue, cleric, etc. The selection of race and class will impact skills and attributes which are available to the character as well as the strengths and weaknesses the character.

===The Magic System ===
The magic system used in Dungeons & Dragons was originally adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref> Novices and those who have never played the game should note that in this case, the player doesn't actually memorize anything. The character "memorization" is really just a mechanic to help limit the number of spells a player can use per gaming episode. The 4th Edition makes significant changes to the system, basing most abilities on "per encounter" uses (as in, how many times per battle or event an ability can be used).

===The Combat System ===
To determine the outcome of combat, players roll dice to determine if an attack "hits" and then if the attack hits how much damage the attack does. Damage reduces the defender's "hit points". When a combatant's hit points are depleted that combatant is "dead" or incapacitated. This combat system was developed from a ship-to-ship naval combat game that Gygax adapted to describe medieval man-to-man combat.

==History and Development==
To many Americans ''Dungeons & Dragons'' seemed to appear from nothingness as a wholly born concoction of occult elements and hypnotic game play. The truth is that the game evolved from mundane roots in a quite corner of Wisconsin outside Milwaukee. The origins of D&D are found in a prior generation of [[miniatures games]] such as [[H.G. Wells]]' [[Little Wars]]. ''Little Wars'' is a set of rules which describe how to play a game with toy soldiers.

Wells' rules were themselves were based upon a earlier games which were primarily played by nobility and royals to teach warfare strategy. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6040&pageno=2 Foreword to Little Wars by ''H.G. Wells''</ref>. With the publication of ''Little Wars'', H.G. Wells hoped to bring a game previously known only to kings to the common man. Because tin soldiers do not bleed and do not leave widows, it was Wells hope that men could settle differences by little wars rather than real wars.

Miniature gaming such as ''Little Wars'' was nearly unknown in America, although there were pockets of hobbyists such as "International Federation of Gamers", a tiny group near Milwaukee Wisconsin.<ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp</ref> [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] were members of that gaming group. It can rightly be said that Gygax and Arneson are the fathers of modern role-playing games, but the contributions of other local gamers are muddied into this mix as well.

===Gygax & Arneson===
In the earliest days, the International Federation of Gamers was possessed of a grand name, but little more. Of course few records were kept at that time. Thus, there is some dispute about who exactly invented what aspects of the game. In 1969, Gary Gygax adapted rules meant to govern wooden ship combat into a medieval combat game which was published by Guidon Games under the name ''Chainmail''. The game was very popular locally and grew organically over the next few years. At the same time, ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' was gaining mass appeal in the United States. This inspired players to incorporate elements of fantasy into their wargames.

By 1970, Dave Arneson adapted these and other club rules into something generally referred to as ''the fantasy game'' <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/</ref>. ''The fantasy game'' had several key innovations --- many of which were of Arneson's devising. In previous wargames, players generally led an army of toy soldiers. But in ''the fantasy game'', each player had only one soldier, described as a ''character'' or ''player character''.

Further the game evolved to include the concept that at the next game session would pick up where the last game session ended. Another evolutionary concept was the idea of a referee or game master. The referee, often played by Arneson or Gygax, had the job of making final judgments and augmenting the rules as necessary to keep the game going. <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html</ref>

There is some question as to who exactly designed what in ''the fantasy game'' with at times Gygax and Arneson jointly and severably claiming to have "invented the game". There is no doubt that both many, and many gamers, where involved in the evolution of the game. Arneson's chief claims rest on his evolution of certain key concepts that would constitute all role-playing games to follow. Gygax's claim rests upon the fact that most of the early reference works were authored by Gygax.

===OD&D===
In 1972, Gary Gygax and others formed a partnership called Tactical Studies Rules and in 1974 Tactical Studies Rules published Gary Gygax' version of "the Fantasy Game", later named ''Dungeons & Dragons''. <ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp#</ref> This version of the game --- often called ''Original Dungeons & Dragons'', ''Old Dungeons & Dragons'' or ''OD&D'' --- was printed in staple-bound paperback form from folded sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper and sold as a boxed set.

By many accounts, ''OD&D'' was a clunky game, sparse on rules, but in this game one would find all the elements of a modern role-playing game: player characters, a game master, serial adventures, and the opportunity for character growth. Several print runs of this version sold out quickly and went on to exceed the expectations of everyone involved.

After the tremendous success of the D&D paperbacks, Tactical Studies Rules reorganized with partners Gary Gygax, Don Kaye and Brian Blume under the name TSR Hobbies Inc. In 1975, TSR Hobbies published OD&D supplements, Gygax's ''[[Greyhawk]]'' and Arneson's ''[[Blackmoor]]''. <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/greyhawk.html</ref> <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/blackmoor.html</ref>

''Dungeons & Dragons'' began to be noticed by American culture at about the same time the company released ''Eldritch Wizardry'' and ''God, Demigods & Heroes''. The cover of ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured an nude dress female strewn over an altar. <ref>http://www.deigames.com/eldwiz2.JPG</ref> ''Gods, Demigods & Heroes'' was a mythological reference with gods and heroes from the legends and lore of Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Norse and more. Many of these mythological gods are considered creatures of human invention, but some are now considered demons by the Christian Church.

Although the game was gaining popularity, the works served as a lightning rod for criticism. Although some of the art in these and later editions would violate the [[Comics Code]], the publishers at TSR failed to appreciate the danger of ignoring these rules. Some of TSR's management believed that D&D was marketed toward adult males, not teens and preteens, and thus the Comics Code did not apply. It soon became evident that D&D's popularity reached beyond college-age males.

===First Edition===
In 1977, TSR Hobbies published the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, a boxed set containing revised and abbreviated rules for easier introduction to the game. This was followed in 1978 by the publication of the "core rule books" of D&D: the ''Players Handbook'', the ''Dungeon Masters Guide'' and the ''Monster Manual''. (Later editions of this game would follow this pattern.) Taken as a whole with several other reference books this version of the game is alternatively referred to as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, AD&D, 1E, 1ED&D. This version of the game revised and organized the notes from OD&D into a single playable whole in hardback books.

Although the art found in the books is hardly obscene and does not approach what is found regularly in American culture today, there were a handful of depictions that did not meet the Comics Code. For example, a harpy, a creature from Greek mythology, that is half-woman half-vulture was depicted with nipples revealed. <ref>''Monster Manual'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1978</ref> And a mermaid was depicted topless with her hair covering parts of the chest. <ref>''Dungeon Masters Guide'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1979</ref>

Additionally the game had references to many demons and devils (intended as adversaries). Also the game had a polytheist mythos with some players playing the part of clerics, or priests, of these imaginary or mythical gods. (See backlash below.)

===Second Edition===
In 1983, TSR Hobbies changed its name to TSR, Inc. For the next several years, TSR, Inc. released supplements and adventures for AD&D, along with reprints of the AD&D core books. Typical adventure supplements sold 10,000 to 100,000 units, while each print run of the AD&D core rules sold 40,000 copies. <ref>http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html</ref> While the company continue to sell respectable amounts of product, internal disorganization, in-fighting and corporate inefficiencies limited profitability. After a bitter fight with partners, Gygax was forced from the board of directors and eventually left the company. With Arneson gone since First Edition, the game was now in the hands of a second generation.

In 1989, TSR Inc. released Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This version of the game was largely a rewrite of the previous edition that was nearly fully compatible with First Edition AD&D. The game was largely sanitized and edited, but not so much reborne. For example, the art of Second Edition achieved a more professional standard. The art did not violate the Comics Code. Second Edition removed all references to "real" gods, devils and demons and inserted divas and angelic creatures.

Under the umbrella of Second Edition D&D, TSR, Inc. released some of its most enduring and popular titles. Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were all second edition products.

===Third Edition===
In 1997, TSR, Inc. was purchased by [[Wizards of the Coast]]. (Wizards is often called WotC, and this acronym is pronounced ''what-see''.) Wizards (eventually acquired by Hasbro) continued to improve the art and graphics of D&D and in 2000 released ''Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons'' to supplant second edition. While preserving the concepts of RPGing and many of the archetypes of AD&D, Third Edition (3E) would do what Second Edition had not.

Third Edition rewrote many of the basic constructs of the game in an effort to "modernize" the game and streamline some of D&D's clumsiest and clunkiest mechanics. Third Edition rules and supplements broke from the tradition of improving an existing system. Rather third edition replaced the previous system with "new and better" mechanics.

By the time of the release of Third Edition, most of the controversy associated with D&D had dissipated as secular culture had digressed far beyond anything found in previous D&D. With little controversy or fanfare, D&D reintroduced demons and many of the darker concepts of ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

Now based in Seattle Washington, rather than Lake Geneva Wisconsin, the editors at WotC seem to exhibit the cultural norms found in Seattle rather than the heartlands. For example, rather than using the pronoun ''he'' in non-gender specific rules, Third Edition D&D bypasses the clumsy but [[political_correctness | politically correct]] construct ''he/she'', and describes rules based on hypothetical characters. For example, the 3rd Edition "iconic" paladin was a woman named Alhandra, so the rules text describing the paladin's abilities used "she"; 3rd Edition's "iconic" cleric was a man named Jozan, so the rules text describing the cleric's abilities used "he".

The D&D ethos traditionally favored ''good'' characters, but Third Edition seems to subscribe to a "balanced" view as the idea. For example, many of the more evil creatures in Dungeons and Dragons prey on each other as much as on good people (the iconic example being lawful evil devils and chaotic evil demons); some of the text in the game indicates that they should be left to do this, rather than someone trying to destroy one or the other and uniting them, however briefly, in a struggle against the interloper. This is a troubling symptom of our cultural drift from conservative values but not the cause of that drift.

===Fourth Edition===
With much fanfare, the Fourth Edition of the game was recently announced. Coveting the tremendous revenue of miniatures games like [[Games Workshop]]'s ''[[Warhammer]]'', Fourth Edition is compatible with the new D&D Miniatures game. Fourth Edition also uses many of the conventions wildly accepted in online computer games following widely successful games like Blizzard's [[World_of_Warcraft | World of Warcraft]] and [[Diablo]]. The game makes several other adjustments; see above for some such changes.

====D&D Online====
There is now a Dungeons & Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting. Online and computer games are similar to D&D in many respects, but the play of these games is entirely different. D&D is characterized by a human referee and complete freedom of action. Without these key components, the game is a mere shadow of D&D.

===Summary===

''Dungeons & Dragons'' is nothing more or less than a formalized game of pretend, similar to imaginary adventures that children everywhere play. But, the simplicity of this concept was not immediately evident to players of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' or the public at large. Although D&D has a fantasy theme and many rules for resolving actions, ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is at its core a game of pretend like "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians".

==Concerns and Criticisms==
In the late seventies and early eighties, the sudden popularity of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' resulted in a cultural and religious backlash against perceived dangers from the game. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was linked to the occult, witchcraft & demonology. Additionally there was some criticism about the art depicted in the earliest versions of the game. Much of this criticism came from the natural tendency of people to fear the unknown and to fear new ideas, but some of this criticism was valid and affected later versions of what was published under the name ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

===Demons and Devils===
In D&D, player characters (the player's in game persona) are constantly gaining strength and power. Therefore, they are forever seeking more powerful adversaries and more difficult challenges. For example, at the start of a campaign player characters may be doing battle with creatures short of stature with few may limitations (low intelligence, fear of sunlight) such as [[goblin]]s or [[kobold]]s. But as the player character's power increases, so to increases the deadliness of their opponents. In the search for ever more powerful opponents game designers eventually developed attributes for demons and devils.

The publishers of the game had imagined that they would sell a few hundred copies to college-aged males and never imagined that the game would experience explosive popularity, especially among teens as young as thirteen. Therefore, no thought or planning was invested into the potential impact of defining the powers and abilities of demons and devils. To the game's designers and players, killing a demon (in game) was no more controversial than killing a bishop in a game of chess.

But to bystanders the very inclusion of demons and devils was enough to cast suspicion upon the entire game--particularly since the game's much-touted freedom might allow a character to side with them. Additionally, the inclusions of demons and devils in the game raised other questions, such as why there are no angels in the game. There were no angels in the earliest editions of the game, because there was no reason to have an angel in the role of a ''monster''. (See terminology above.) By late First Edition and early Second Edition, the game included and defined [[angels]], [[devas]] and other highly powerful creatures of good; sometimes these were presented as allies for good characters, sometimes enemies for evil ones. This led to the criticism that religious icons were being disrespected by inclusion in the reference works.

In the Second Edition, the publishers tried to sanitize D&D by removing demons and devils, but many players (who enjoyed the challenge of destroying demons) resisted this effort. Later editions removed many references to "real" demons. Additionally, the terms "devil" and "demon" were replaced with the terms "baatezu" and "tanar'ri", respectively, and "the Nine Hells" (the outer planar home of devils/baatezu) was renamed "Baator".

However, in Third Edition, the game's original terms were readopted and blended--colloquially, for example, creatures from the Nine Hells (also called Baator) were called devils, but the most dominant species of the devils called themselves baatezu. An entire "mature" supplement (though there is no legal restriction on who may buy it, a large sticker is on the cover of most copies, stating it is for mature gamers only), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game, ostensibly in ways for the DM to make the most horrific enemies possible for their players. A follow-up, the Book of Exalted Deeds<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/880260000 "Book of Exalted Deeds"]</ref>, was created as a way for players to explore the philosophy and morality of good, and to make a good alignment more than a line on their character sheet. (The titles of both books are based on magic items in the game, both of which are extremely useful to a person of the proper alignment.)

The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook contains a "Warlock" class, which allows the player to make a pact with a certain creature to gain power. One option is the "Infernal Pact", allowing the player to literally make a deal with the devil.

===D&D and the Occult===
The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. A minority of Christians believe that fictional depictions of fantasy elements such as those found in ''[[The Chronicles of Narnia]]'', ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', ''[[Harry Potter]]'', or ''Dungeons & Dragons'' are blasphemous, but most Christians see no problem with such fictional works.

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some fundamentalist Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. The game's dangers were alleged in the ''Dark Dungeons'' tract by [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.

The fact is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' designers and players had nothing to do with occult or criminal activity and thirty years later it may be hard to understand how people could confuse D&D with occult activities. In the earliest days of D&D it was easy for an uninformed bystander to draw faulty conclusions based upon a limited knowledge of the game. In its earliest days, OD&D often sold out due to low print runs, leaving bystanders with little access to the rules and little direct knowledge of the game.

For example, bystanders knew the game was developing a devoted cult-following. There is an important distinction between a cult-following and a cult itself, but this was lost on some bystanders. As a cult-following, D&D developed an insular fraternity of fans who were plugged into something exciting and new. Each day the world of D&D expanded and every player everywhere had a hand in the growth of the game. The players were developing their own lexicon and making new and ever expanding rules. This close bond and strange lexicon was easily misunderstood by those with limited exposure to the game.

In the late seventies the game's popularity was preceded by rumors that players were involved in some strange occult activities. Bystanders knew that D&D players were talking about fantastic creatures, magical spells and even demons because the game often includes descriptions of [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s. To an uninformed bystander this may be pretty scary stuff. But, the truth was significantly less mysterious and sensational.

These misperceptions have largely evaporated, both because of the game's popularity and better information about the product. Critics became aware that players were not involved in anything occult but were gaming in a fantasy setting. Most everyone in America knows someone who has played ''Dungeons & Dragons'', so these days it's all but impossible to blur the line between occult activity and role-playing games.

===God and gods===
One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. (The Deities and Demigods<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881650000 "Deities and Demigods"]</ref> supplement offers several different takes on religion, including rules for a monotheistic game world, but deliberately sidesteps the question of any modern religion--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.--even as it brings up pantheons of old myths, such as the Greek or Norse gods. It's likely they used only "dead" religions in order to avoid controversy.) The question of what extent and form of religion should be depicted in the game has been a question since the earliest days of the game. In an in depth look at monotheism in fantasy games, Joseph R.Ravitts raised some of the problems and benefits for a born-again Christian's point of view.<ref>"Monotheism in Gaming" by Joseph R. Ravitts, Pegasus Magazine Issue #4 published in 1981 by Judges' Guild</ref>

Ravitts already understood the power of role-playing, which is now well known. Namely, role-playing is a powerful behavior modification tool. If you pretend that you believe something, eventually you will believe that something. For this reason, he posited that it was important to avoid role-playing in a polytheistic world. Referencing the classic argument from ''[[Mere Christianity]]'' by [[C.S._Lewis | C.S. Lewis]], Ravitts explained how polytheism is really just [[atheism]] or [[monotheism]] in disguise. He believed that if players and DM's actively played in an atheistic world, they would eventually become atheists.

He then pointed out the difficulties of importing Christianity or other religions into D&D. Ravitts pointed out it is a simple matter to import mythological gods like [[Zeus]] or [[Thor]] into a fantasy setting. One simply imagines these gods are in the fantasy world and begins playing. But this is much more difficult with religious figures like [[Jesus]], [[Muhammad]] or [[Buddha]]. Each of these three men were real historic personages. For example, Jesus lived, died and rose again in the Middle East at a specific time and place.

Ravitts proposed two simple work-arounds, for those who care about their spiritual well-being. Firstly, one could assume that all humans are teleported from Earth or descended from folks who were teleported from Earth. These humans have preserved their religious identities and thus Christianity is an option for players without tampering with the historical nature of Jesus.

Secondly Ravitts proposed altering the game's mythos to allow for an all-powerful detached God reigning over the "gods, demigods and devils". In this way the "gods" are not gods at all, but just ultra-powerful beings who distract souls from worshiping the one true God.

Of course there are alternatives such as ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'' a D&D type game set in the Biblical Era. Further, many of the game worlds portray certain gods and religions as being metaphors for modern ones. (Even the incredibly polytheistic Forgotten Realms, where more than a hundred deities exist, features a triad of gods that could be based on the Holy Trinity.) But ultimately, D&D is a game of fantasy and players are encouraged to alter the game world to better suit their tastes. Many Christian players alter the game world so that it better fits their personal beliefs. The parent of a role-playing gamer or any gamer who is concerned for his spiritual health is well-advised to consider the power of role-playing as a behavior modification tool. If you pretend to be heroic long enough, eventually you can become heroic. The danger of pretending to be an atheist or pretending to be an evil character should be obvious and should be avoided.

===The art of D&D===
Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for ''Dungeons & Dragons'' often contain images of immodestly dressed women. For example, in the First Edition ''Monster Manual'' a number of drawings depicted topless creatures of fantasy such as the harpy (half-vulture half-woman) or the succubus (a demoness). The OD&D reference ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured the profile of a nude woman. Most of these images are fairly crudely rendered and are not particularly racy by today's standards, but they did exceed the limitations of the [[Comics Code]] of the time<ref>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/cca3.html</ref>.

By the publication of Second Edition, the art and layout of the D&D game was managed by professionals. As a result the quality of the art increased significantly and anything racy was eliminated from the art work. There was some minor controversy with the revised Third Edition ''Monster Manual'''s artwork of the succubus and nymph (a water spirit in the form of a beautiful woman), but aside from these there is nothing particularly shocking in the art for a child or adult of any age.

===Unchristian Activities===
Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ. The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake the roleplaying of un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils. Certain fundamentalists disagree with the very format of the game in that player characters can pretend to cast imaginary spells while playing the game.

Some feel that the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). Others see these actions as heroic endeavors and wealth is a byproduct of doing good things. Either way, the game and it's choices are a matter of free will.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice. The supplements that deal specifically with demons and devils make it quite clear that the afterlife for characters who are condemned to the Abyss or the Nine Heels is in no way pleasant, and may even be short.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons & Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". Some argue that in response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons & Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthulhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players act the roles of undead vampires.

====Possible Areas of Concern for Christians====
D&D is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By its very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters. However, the possibility exists that such an experience may not be beneficial or appropriate for everyone--in particular, persons who already have difficulty separating fantasy with reality might be able to be helped by the game, but it could also make things worse. Due to the nature of roleplaying games, a great deal depends upon the individual group in question; a given game of Dungeons and Dragons might be benign from a Christian standpoint, or it might involve activities and ideas that a Christian would find profoundly distasteful.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]
* [http://www.fansforchrist.org/new/articles/article03a.htm Christians Playing Dungeons and Dragons] - An informed Christian's perspective on Dungeons & Dragons.
* [http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic2.html Ethics in Fantasy: Morality and D&D] - Tracey Hickman's essay concerning Christian perspectives and common misunderstandings about Role-Playing Games
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3691 Full text of H.G. Wells ''Little Wars; a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty']

[[Category:Games]]

Dungeons and Dragons

2009-01-13T02:34:54Z

LowKey: /* Demons and Devils */ "begging the question" is something else altogether

[[Image:Dungeons_and_Dragons.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A ''Dungeons & Dragons'' game in progress.]]
'''Dungeons & Dragons''' (D&D or DnD) is a [[role-playing]] game with a medieval theme featuring [[myth]]ical creatures such as [[elf|elves]], [[dwarf (mythology)|dwarves]], [[orc]]s, and [[dragon]]s. Players take the role of characters who solve a series of heroic adventures or quests. Largely considered harmless fantasy, the game has attracted some criticism.

Players do not compete with one another; rather, the players cooperate to achieve goals and objectives while a referee, in this case called the ''dungeon master'' (DM) or ''game master'' (GM), interprets rules and adjudicates the success or failure of the players' efforts.

The game was first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules (TSR). Most of those rules and many of the subsequent rules were authored by [[Gary Gygax]]. There are some who claim that [[Dave Arneson]] was the actual "inventor" of D&D, but this claim is disputed, not least by the fact that many references were authored by Gygax. The game was eventually sold to [[Wizards of the Coast]], a division of Hasbro.<ref>Wizards of the Coast's [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D site]</ref>

In the late seventies the game's popularity exploded and it can rightly be said that the game is now a part of American culture. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' spawned countless variations and permutations, but during the earliest days of the game's growth, there were accusations that the game contributed to Satanic worship, teen suicide and general moral depravity. These criticisms have largely been addressed and the game remains controversial to only a tiny minority of Americans.

The 4th Edition of the game is the most recent, released in 2008.

==D&D Terminology==
Because D&D was a revolutionary game, it developed its own unique set of terminology to describe certain concepts in the game. Here's a quick list of important game terms which may be important to understand the game and its impact on American society.

::* ''Dungeon Master'' --- The Dungeon Master (DM) is not the player's opponent or ally, but is the game's referee. As the referee, it is the DM's responsibility to adjudicate the results player's actions. Additionally, the DM must play the role of monsters and the player's opponents. The DM has a duty to make the game fair, fun and playable. Many derivative games refer to this player as the Game Master or GM.
::* ''Player'' --- Any participant in the game that is not the DM.
::* ''Player Character'' --- The player character (or character) is the player's in-game persona. The character is most usually a heroic archetype such as a warrior, priest, wizard or rogue of some kind. The game allows for each archetype (called a "class") to possess unique skills and powers. If the player character survives the game session, the character can advance in experience and acquire higher levels and powers.
::* ''Monster'' --- A monster is any creature or in game character who may provide a challenge to the player characters. Many ''monsters'' like dragons or giants are monstrous, but others are fantastic such as pixies or unicorns. The DM chooses the actions of monsters.
::* ''Campaign'' --- In traditional games, the game ends and the game session ends. In D&D, the game continues through multiple sessions with the game always picking up where the last session ended. A series of game sessions that have some internal logic or structure is called a ''campaign''.
::* ''Spells'' --- In D&D, the term ''spells'' describe imaginary powers bestowed to certain player characters. This would be analogous to [[Gandalf]]'s fireworks or [[Merlin]]'s enchantments. In the game, spells are designed to mimic the powers and abilities found in fantasy literature and have no further relation to [[witchcraft]] or anything occult.
::* ''Experience Points'' --- Experience Points or XP are a metric representing the number of the heroic actions of a player character has achieved in a given campaign. The more XP a character acquires, the more powers and abilities the character has in the game. [[Image:dnddice.jpg|thumb|right|Some of the unusual dice required to play Dungeons & Dragons.]]
::* ''d20'' --- Actions and combat in D&D are most often resolved by rolling polyhedral [[dice]]. While standard dice are six-sided cubes, polyhedral dice have can have 20, 12, 10, 8, 6, or 4 sides. To distinguish between dice the standard nomenclature is ''d#'' where the # indicates the number of sides on the die. The d20 is the most commonly rolled die in D&D.

==Game play==
''Dungeons & Dragons'' is a free-form game in which a referee (the Dungeon Master) describes a situational problem to the players and then the players reply with any imaginable response. The exploits of players can occur in any fantasy setting but at some point the adventure often occurs in a ''dungeon'' or subterranean locale not unlike ''[[Khazad-dûm|Moria]]'' in [[Tolkien]]'s ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''. For example a DM might say to the players, "You have arrived the edge of a deep pit. The pit is so deep as to prevent you from seeing the bottom and so wide as to look impossible to jump. Far below you hear hissing and rustling as if a thousand poisonous snakes await you in the darkness."

Depending upon how motivated the players are to continue in this direction, the players might ask the DM various interrogatories such as "Is it possible to walk along the edge of the pit and continue down the passage?" or "Is there anything on the opposite side of the pit to which we might be able to tie a rope?"

Next the players will decide what course of actions their characters will take. Each player tries to take advantage of his character's unique talents. For example, the player of the rogue will know that his character is skilled at climbing walls. By jamming his fingers and toes into the cracks in the mortar, the rogue can negotiate along the wall to the opposite side. If the character's actions are reasonable and relatively easy to accomplish the DM allows for them to happen without further comment. If the action is more outrageous, or risky, the DM consults rules and conventions to determine which dice will govern the success of the action.

At the end of each gaming sessions, the DM grants all players a number of Experience Points (XP's) to represent the player accomplishments. When the character has acquired enough Experience Points, the character can gain more powers and abilities.

===Alignment System===
Because D&D players can basically do "anything" there are moral implications to the choices players make. To provide a frame of reference and to help the game make sense Gygax devised an alignment system. All characters are required to choose an ''alignment'' and the character must adhere to the beliefs of that alignment. Similarly, all monsters have alignments and thus their actions can be predictable and make sense.

"Good" characters strive to do acts of goodness and while avoiding actions which are hurtful to others. "Evil" characters think only of their own needs. Animals and certain other creatures don't care much about good or evil. At the same time "Lawful" characters believe that it is important to adhere to the rule of law, while "Chaotic" characters are more concerned with personal freedoms than with laws. Some characters do not care whether an action is lawful or chaotic, but only whether it is good or evil. By combining these two frameworks, we arrive at the nine alignments: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, true neutral ("neutral neutral"), chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

These alignments help a player separate what the player or referee would do in a given situation from how the character or monster might react in the same situation. Some DMs forbid evil characters as they are often disruptive to the game, though the rules do not expressly require that players choose good characters.

In the original versions of the game, only the "ethical" (Law/Chaos) axis of morality was present. The "moral" (good/evil) axis was added in later editions. 4th Edition removes the axis concept, resulting in the alignments lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, and chaotic evil.

===Components of a Character===
A character is described in detail on a "character sheet" where the player records important facts about the character. This includes the character's "race", vocation, unique skills, and numerical ratings of the character's attributes.

In this case, "race" refers to a race from fantasy such as an elf, dwarf, gnome or halfling--effectively used as an archaic term for "species". The races which are allowed in the game vary from DM to DM according to the tastes of players and the setting that the DM has devised. The vocation or "class" of the character refers to the fantasy archetype the player wishes to play, e.g. wizard, barbarian, rogue, cleric, etc. The selection of race and class will impact skills and attributes which are available to the character as well as the strengths and weaknesses the character.

===The Magic System ===
The magic system used in Dungeons & Dragons was originally adopted very roughly from the writing of fantasy and science fiction author [[Jack Vance]]. In the Vancian system, magic-users such as wizards must prepare all of their spells in advance for that day by memorizing them and a spell leaves the wizard's memory upon being cast. To cast the spell again, the magic-user must once again memorize the spell. The Vancian system was chosen for a variety of reasons such as its originality compared to pre-existing magical systems, its avoidance any connection with systems of magic described in any religion or occult theory, and it being the creation one of Gygax's favorite authors.<ref>Forum discussion: [http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/printthread.php?t=182603 "Is D&D magic purely Vancian?"]</ref><ref>RPGnet: [http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10222.phtml Review of "The Primer of Practical Magic"]</ref> Novices and those who have never played the game should note that in this case, the player doesn't actually memorize anything. The character "memorization" is really just a mechanic to help limit the number of spells a player can use per gaming episode. The 4th Edition makes significant changes to the system, basing most abilities on "per encounter" uses (as in, how many times per battle or event an ability can be used).

===The Combat System ===
To determine the outcome of combat, players roll dice to determine if an attack "hits" and then if the attack hits how much damage the attack does. Damage reduces the defender's "hit points". When a combatant's hit points are depleted that combatant is "dead" or incapacitated. This combat system was developed from a ship-to-ship naval combat game that Gygax adapted to describe medieval man-to-man combat.

==History and Development==
To many Americans ''Dungeons & Dragons'' seemed to appear from nothingness as a wholly born concoction of occult elements and hypnotic game play. The truth is that the game evolved from mundane roots in a quite corner of Wisconsin outside Milwaukee. The origins of D&D are found in a prior generation of [[miniatures games]] such as [[H.G. Wells]]' [[Little Wars]]. ''Little Wars'' is a set of rules which describe how to play a game with toy soldiers.

Wells' rules were themselves were based upon a earlier games which were primarily played by nobility and royals to teach warfare strategy. <ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6040&pageno=2 Foreword to Little Wars by ''H.G. Wells''</ref>. With the publication of ''Little Wars'', H.G. Wells hoped to bring a game previously known only to kings to the common man. Because tin soldiers do not bleed and do not leave widows, it was Wells hope that men could settle differences by little wars rather than real wars.

Miniature gaming such as ''Little Wars'' was nearly unknown in America, although there were pockets of hobbyists such as "International Federation of Gamers", a tiny group near Milwaukee Wisconsin.<ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp</ref> [[Gary Gygax]] and [[Dave Arneson]] were members of that gaming group. It can rightly be said that Gygax and Arneson are the fathers of modern role-playing games, but the contributions of other local gamers are muddied into this mix as well.

===Gygax & Arneson===
In the earliest days, the International Federation of Gamers was possessed of a grand name, but little more. Of course few records were kept at that time. Thus, there is some dispute about who exactly invented what aspects of the game. In 1969, Gary Gygax adapted rules meant to govern wooden ship combat into a medieval combat game which was published by Guidon Games under the name ''Chainmail''. The game was very popular locally and grew organically over the next few years. At the same time, ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'' was gaining mass appeal in the United States. This inspired players to incorporate elements of fantasy into their wargames.

By 1970, Dave Arneson adapted these and other club rules into something generally referred to as ''the fantasy game'' <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/</ref>. ''The fantasy game'' had several key innovations --- many of which were of Arneson's devising. In previous wargames, players generally led an army of toy soldiers. But in ''the fantasy game'', each player had only one soldier, described as a ''character'' or ''player character''.

Further the game evolved to include the concept that at the next game session would pick up where the last game session ended. Another evolutionary concept was the idea of a referee or game master. The referee, often played by Arneson or Gygax, had the job of making final judgments and augmenting the rules as necessary to keep the game going. <ref>http://jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/rpg2.html</ref>

There is some question as to who exactly designed what in ''the fantasy game'' with at times Gygax and Arneson jointly and severably claiming to have "invented the game". There is no doubt that both many, and many gamers, where involved in the evolution of the game. Arneson's chief claims rest on his evolution of certain key concepts that would constitute all role-playing games to follow. Gygax's claim rests upon the fact that most of the early reference works were authored by Gygax.

===OD&D===
In 1972, Gary Gygax and others formed a partnership called Tactical Studies Rules and in 1974 Tactical Studies Rules published Gary Gygax' version of "the Fantasy Game", later named ''Dungeons & Dragons''. <ref>http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp#</ref> This version of the game --- often called ''Original Dungeons & Dragons'', ''Old Dungeons & Dragons'' or ''OD&D'' --- was printed in staple-bound paperback form from folded sheets of 8.5 x 11 paper and sold as a boxed set.

By many accounts, ''OD&D'' was a clunky game, sparse on rules, but in this game one would find all the elements of a modern role-playing game: player characters, a game master, serial adventures, and the opportunity for character growth. Several print runs of this version sold out quickly and went on to exceed the expectations of everyone involved.

After the tremendous success of the D&D paperbacks, Tactical Studies Rules reorganized with partners Gary Gygax, Don Kaye and Brian Blume under the name TSR Hobbies Inc. In 1975, TSR Hobbies published OD&D supplements, Gygax's ''[[Greyhawk]]'' and Arneson's ''[[Blackmoor]]''. <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/greyhawk.html</ref> <ref>http://www.dadsdnd.com/blackmoor.html</ref>

''Dungeons & Dragons'' began to be noticed by American culture at about the same time the company released ''Eldritch Wizardry'' and ''God, Demigods & Heroes''. The cover of ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured an nude dress female strewn over an altar. <ref>http://www.deigames.com/eldwiz2.JPG</ref> ''Gods, Demigods & Heroes'' was a mythological reference with gods and heroes from the legends and lore of Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, Norse and more. Many of these mythological gods are considered creatures of human invention, but some are now considered demons by the Christian Church.

Although the game was gaining popularity, the works served as a lightning rod for criticism. Although some of the art in these and later editions would violate the [[Comics Code]], the publishers at TSR failed to appreciate the danger of ignoring these rules. Some of TSR's management believed that D&D was marketed toward adult males, not teens and preteens, and thus the Comics Code did not apply. It soon became evident that D&D's popularity reached beyond college-age males.

===First Edition===
In 1977, TSR Hobbies published the Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, a boxed set containing revised and abbreviated rules for easier introduction to the game. This was followed in 1978 by the publication of the "core rule books" of D&D: the ''Players Handbook'', the ''Dungeon Masters Guide'' and the ''Monster Manual''. (Later editions of this game would follow this pattern.) Taken as a whole with several other reference books this version of the game is alternatively referred to as Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, AD&D, 1E, 1ED&D. This version of the game revised and organized the notes from OD&D into a single playable whole in hardback books.

Although the art found in the books is hardly obscene and does not approach what is found regularly in American culture today, there were a handful of depictions that did not meet the Comics Code. For example, a harpy, a creature from Greek mythology, that is half-woman half-vulture was depicted with nipples revealed. <ref>''Monster Manual'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1978</ref> And a mermaid was depicted topless with her hair covering parts of the chest. <ref>''Dungeon Masters Guide'' by Gary Gygax published by TSR Hobbies 1979</ref>

Additionally the game had references to many demons and devils (intended as adversaries). Also the game had a polytheist mythos with some players playing the part of clerics, or priests, of these imaginary or mythical gods. (See backlash below.)

===Second Edition===
In 1983, TSR Hobbies changed its name to TSR, Inc. For the next several years, TSR, Inc. released supplements and adventures for AD&D, along with reprints of the AD&D core books. Typical adventure supplements sold 10,000 to 100,000 units, while each print run of the AD&D core rules sold 40,000 copies. <ref>http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html</ref> While the company continue to sell respectable amounts of product, internal disorganization, in-fighting and corporate inefficiencies limited profitability. After a bitter fight with partners, Gygax was forced from the board of directors and eventually left the company. With Arneson gone since First Edition, the game was now in the hands of a second generation.

In 1989, TSR Inc. released Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This version of the game was largely a rewrite of the previous edition that was nearly fully compatible with First Edition AD&D. The game was largely sanitized and edited, but not so much reborne. For example, the art of Second Edition achieved a more professional standard. The art did not violate the Comics Code. Second Edition removed all references to "real" gods, devils and demons and inserted divas and angelic creatures.

Under the umbrella of Second Edition D&D, TSR, Inc. released some of its most enduring and popular titles. Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance were all second edition products.

===Third Edition===
In 1997, TSR, Inc. was purchased by [[Wizards of the Coast]]. (Wizards is often called WotC, and this acronym is pronounced ''what-see''.) Wizards (eventually acquired by Hasbro) continued to improve the art and graphics of D&D and in 2000 released ''Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons'' to supplant second edition. While preserving the concepts of RPGing and many of the archetypes of AD&D, Third Edition (3E) would do what Second Edition had not.

Third Edition rewrote many of the basic constructs of the game in an effort to "modernize" the game and streamline some of D&D's clumsiest and clunkiest mechanics. Third Edition rules and supplements broke from the tradition of improving an existing system. Rather third edition replaced the previous system with "new and better" mechanics.

By the time of the release of Third Edition, most of the controversy associated with D&D had dissipated as secular culture had digressed far beyond anything found in previous D&D. With little controversy or fanfare, D&D reintroduced demons and many of the darker concepts of ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

Now based in Seattle Washington, rather than Lake Geneva Wisconsin, the editors at WotC seem to exhibit the cultural norms found in Seattle rather than the heartlands. For example, rather than using the pronoun ''he'' in non-gender specific rules, Third Edition D&D bypasses the clumsy but [[political_correctness | politically correct]] construct ''he/she'', and describes rules based on hypothetical characters. For example, the 3rd Edition "iconic" paladin was a woman named Alhandra, so the rules text describing the paladin's abilities used "she"; 3rd Edition's "iconic" cleric was a man named Jozan, so the rules text describing the cleric's abilities used "he".

The D&D ethos traditionally favored ''good'' characters, but Third Edition seems to subscribe to a "balanced" view as the idea. For example, many of the more evil creatures in Dungeons and Dragons prey on each other as much as on good people (the iconic example being lawful evil devils and chaotic evil demons); some of the text in the game indicates that they should be left to do this, rather than someone trying to destroy one or the other and uniting them, however briefly, in a struggle against the interloper. This is a troubling symptom of our cultural drift from conservative values but not the cause of that drift.

===Fourth Edition===
With much fanfare, the Fourth Edition of the game was recently announced. Coveting the tremendous revenue of miniatures games like [[Games Workshop]]'s ''[[Warhammer]]'', Fourth Edition is compatible with the new D&D Miniatures game. Fourth Edition also uses many of the conventions wildly accepted in online computer games following widely successful games like Blizzard's [[World_of_Warcraft | World of Warcraft]] and [[Diablo]]. The game makes several other adjustments; see above for some such changes.

====D&D Online====
There is now a Dungeons & Dragons Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) known as ''Dungeons & Dragons Online: Stormreach'' which takes place in the ''Eberron'' campaign setting. Online and computer games are similar to D&D in many respects, but the play of these games is entirely different. D&D is characterized by a human referee and complete freedom of action. Without these key components, the game is a mere shadow of D&D.

===Summary===

''Dungeons & Dragons'' is nothing more or less than a formalized game of pretend, similar to imaginary adventures that children everywhere play. But, the simplicity of this concept was not immediately evident to players of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' or the public at large. Although D&D has a fantasy theme and many rules for resolving actions, ''Dungeons & Dragons'' is at its core a game of pretend like "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians".

==Concerns and Criticisms==
In the late seventies and early eighties, the sudden popularity of ''Dungeons & Dragons'' resulted in a cultural and religious backlash against perceived dangers from the game. ''Dungeons & Dragons'' was linked to the occult, witchcraft & demonology. Additionally there was some criticism about the art depicted in the earliest versions of the game. Much of this criticism came from the natural tendency of people to fear the unknown and to fear new ideas, but some of this criticism was valid and affected later versions of what was published under the name ''Dungeons & Dragons''.

===Demons and Devils===
In D&D, player characters (the player's in game persona) are constantly gaining strength and power. Therefore, they are forever seeking more powerful adversaries and more difficult challenges. For example, at the start of a campaign player characters may be doing battle with creatures short of stature with few may limitations (low intelligence, fear of sunlight) such as [[goblin]]s or [[kobold]]s. But as the player character's power increases, so to increases the deadliness of their opponents. In the search for ever more powerful opponents game designers eventually developed attributes for demons and devils.

The publishers of the game had imagined that they would sell a few hundred copies to college-aged males and never imagined that the game would experience explosive popularity, especially among teens as young as thirteen. Therefore, no thought or planning was invested into the potential impact of defining the powers and abilities of demons and devils. To the game's designers and players, killing a demon (in game) was no more controversial than killing a bishop in a game of chess.

But to bystanders the very inclusion of demons and devils was enough to cast suspicion upon the entire game--particularly since the game's much-touted freedom might allow a character to side with them. Additionally, the inclusions of demons and devils in the game raised other questions, such as why are there no angels in the game? There were no angels in the earliest editions of the game, because there was no reason to have an angel in the role of a ''monster''. (See terminology above.) By late First Edition and early Second Edition, the game included and defined [[angels]], [[devas]] and other highly powerful creatures of good; sometimes these were presented as allies for good characters, sometimes enemies for evil ones. This led to the criticism that religious icons were being disrespected by inclusion in the reference works.

In the Second Edition, the publishers tried to sanitize D&D by removing demons and devils, but many players (who enjoyed the challenge of destroying demons) resisted this effort. Later editions removed many references to "real" demons. Additionally, the terms "devil" and "demon" were replaced with the terms "baatezu" and "tanar'ri", respectively, and "the Nine Hells" (the outer planar home of devils/baatezu) was renamed "Baator".

However, in Third Edition, the game's original terms were readopted and blended--colloquially, for example, creatures from the Nine Hells (also called Baator) were called devils, but the most dominant species of the devils called themselves baatezu. An entire "mature" supplement (though there is no legal restriction on who may buy it, a large sticker is on the cover of most copies, stating it is for mature gamers only), known as the Book of Vile Darkness<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881610000 "Book of Vile Darkness"]</ref> was produced to introduce more overtly evil concepts into the game, ostensibly in ways for the DM to make the most horrific enemies possible for their players. A follow-up, the Book of Exalted Deeds<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/880260000 "Book of Exalted Deeds"]</ref>, was created as a way for players to explore the philosophy and morality of good, and to make a good alignment more than a line on their character sheet. (The titles of both books are based on magic items in the game, both of which are extremely useful to a person of the proper alignment.)

The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook contains a "Warlock" class, which allows the player to make a pact with a certain creature to gain power. One option is the "Infernal Pact", allowing the player to literally make a deal with the devil.

===D&D and the Occult===
The game includes fictional depictions of supernatural abilities called magic, evil monsters called demons and devils, and fictional deities along with their followers. Christians are divided on how this interacts with their faith. A minority of Christians believe that fictional depictions of fantasy elements such as those found in ''[[The Chronicles of Narnia]]'', ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', ''[[Harry Potter]]'', or ''Dungeons & Dragons'' are blasphemous, but most Christians see no problem with such fictional works.

Starting in the late 1970s the game and others like it came under attack mainly from some fundamentalist Christians as promoting occult and criminal activity. The game's dangers were alleged in the ''Dark Dungeons'' tract by [[Jack Chick]]<ref>Jack Chick: [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp "Dark Dungeons"]</ref>, which portrays D&D players committing suicide when their characters are killed or joining secret witches' covens and learning to cast real magic spells when their characters reach a high enough level.

The fact is that ''Dungeons & Dragons'' designers and players had nothing to do with occult or criminal activity and thirty years later it may be hard to understand how people could confuse D&D with occult activities. In the earliest days of D&D it was easy for an uninformed bystander to draw faulty conclusions based upon a limited knowledge of the game. In its earliest days, OD&D often sold out due to low print runs, leaving bystanders with little access to the rules and little direct knowledge of the game.

For example, bystanders knew the game was developing a devoted cult-following. There is an important distinction between a cult-following and a cult itself, but this was lost on some bystanders. As a cult-following, D&D developed an insular fraternity of fans who were plugged into something exciting and new. Each day the world of D&D expanded and every player everywhere had a hand in the growth of the game. The players were developing their own lexicon and making new and ever expanding rules. This close bond and strange lexicon was easily misunderstood by those with limited exposure to the game.

In the late seventies the game's popularity was preceded by rumors that players were involved in some strange occult activities. Bystanders knew that D&D players were talking about fantastic creatures, magical spells and even demons because the game often includes descriptions of [[occult]] elements like [[magic]], [[ghost]]s, [[spirit]]s, [[demon]]s and [[devil]]s. To an uninformed bystander this may be pretty scary stuff. But, the truth was significantly less mysterious and sensational.

These misperceptions have largely evaporated, both because of the game's popularity and better information about the product. Critics became aware that players were not involved in anything occult but were gaming in a fantasy setting. Most everyone in America knows someone who has played ''Dungeons & Dragons'', so these days it's all but impossible to blur the line between occult activity and role-playing games.

===God and gods===
One item of concern for conservative Christians is that players' characters do not usually worship [[God]], but instead choose a [[patron]] deity from a fictional [[polytheistic]] pantheon. The game settings manufactured by [[Wizards of the Coast]] (''Greyhawk'', ''Faerun'', ''Eberron'', etc.) expressly adopt a polytheistic [[pantheon]] of fictional deities and reject real-world [[religion]]s as a part of the game. (The Deities and Demigods<ref>[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881650000 "Deities and Demigods"]</ref> supplement offers several different takes on religion, including rules for a monotheistic game world, but deliberately sidesteps the question of any modern religion--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.--even as it brings up pantheons of old myths, such as the Greek or Norse gods. It's likely they used only "dead" religions in order to avoid controversy.) The question of what extent and form of religion should be depicted in the game has been a question since the earliest days of the game. In an in depth look at monotheism in fantasy games, Joseph R.Ravitts raised some of the problems and benefits for a born-again Christian's point of view.<ref>"Monotheism in Gaming" by Joseph R. Ravitts, Pegasus Magazine Issue #4 published in 1981 by Judges' Guild</ref>

Ravitts already understood the power of role-playing, which is now well known. Namely, role-playing is a powerful behavior modification tool. If you pretend that you believe something, eventually you will believe that something. For this reason, he posited that it was important to avoid role-playing in a polytheistic world. Referencing the classic argument from ''[[Mere Christianity]]'' by [[C.S._Lewis | C.S. Lewis]], Ravitts explained how polytheism is really just [[atheism]] or [[monotheism]] in disguise. He believed that if players and DM's actively played in an atheistic world, they would eventually become atheists.

He then pointed out the difficulties of importing Christianity or other religions into D&D. Ravitts pointed out it is a simple matter to import mythological gods like [[Zeus]] or [[Thor]] into a fantasy setting. One simply imagines these gods are in the fantasy world and begins playing. But this is much more difficult with religious figures like [[Jesus]], [[Muhammad]] or [[Buddha]]. Each of these three men were real historic personages. For example, Jesus lived, died and rose again in the Middle East at a specific time and place.

Ravitts proposed two simple work-arounds, for those who care about their spiritual well-being. Firstly, one could assume that all humans are teleported from Earth or descended from folks who were teleported from Earth. These humans have preserved their religious identities and thus Christianity is an option for players without tampering with the historical nature of Jesus.

Secondly Ravitts proposed altering the game's mythos to allow for an all-powerful detached God reigning over the "gods, demigods and devils". In this way the "gods" are not gods at all, but just ultra-powerful beings who distract souls from worshiping the one true God.

Of course there are alternatives such as ''[http://www.greenronin.com/catalog/grr1019 Testament]'' a D&D type game set in the Biblical Era. Further, many of the game worlds portray certain gods and religions as being metaphors for modern ones. (Even the incredibly polytheistic Forgotten Realms, where more than a hundred deities exist, features a triad of gods that could be based on the Holy Trinity.) But ultimately, D&D is a game of fantasy and players are encouraged to alter the game world to better suit their tastes. Many Christian players alter the game world so that it better fits their personal beliefs. The parent of a role-playing gamer or any gamer who is concerned for his spiritual health is well-advised to consider the power of role-playing as a behavior modification tool. If you pretend to be heroic long enough, eventually you can become heroic. The danger of pretending to be an atheist or pretending to be an evil character should be obvious and should be avoided.

===The art of D&D===
Another criticism is that illustrations in the rule books for ''Dungeons & Dragons'' often contain images of immodestly dressed women. For example, in the First Edition ''Monster Manual'' a number of drawings depicted topless creatures of fantasy such as the harpy (half-vulture half-woman) or the succubus (a demoness). The OD&D reference ''Eldritch Wizardry'' featured the profile of a nude woman. Most of these images are fairly crudely rendered and are not particularly racy by today's standards, but they did exceed the limitations of the [[Comics Code]] of the time<ref>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8580/cca3.html</ref>.

By the publication of Second Edition, the art and layout of the D&D game was managed by professionals. As a result the quality of the art increased significantly and anything racy was eliminated from the art work. There was some minor controversy with the revised Third Edition ''Monster Manual'''s artwork of the succubus and nymph (a water spirit in the form of a beautiful woman), but aside from these there is nothing particularly shocking in the art for a child or adult of any age.

===Unchristian Activities===
Although Dungeons & Dragons does not present itself as either pro-Christian or anti-Christian, the game features many elements which can be considered to agree with or go against the teachings of Christ. The game has drawn criticism for allowing players to undertake the roleplaying of un-Christian activities: the rules allow a player to have their character perform evil acts, including the summoning or worshiping of demons and devils. Certain fundamentalists disagree with the very format of the game in that player characters can pretend to cast imaginary spells while playing the game.

Some feel that the primary action of the game involves the fictional slaying of monsters and the fictional accumulation of wealth, some Christians feel that this goes against the teachings of Christ regarding [[pacifism]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 5:38-42) and the accumulation of [[wealth]] (Matthew 19:24). Others see these actions as heroic endeavors and wealth is a byproduct of doing good things. Either way, the game and it's choices are a matter of free will.

Former [[United Methodist Church]] minister James Wyatt wrote an essay comparing the freedom of a Dungeons & Dragons player to choose his own actions, to the Christian concept of Free Will. As in real life, a player may, when presented with a moral choice, decide for himself whether to do good or evil. If the player was not able to do evil, he would be forced to do good, removing his freedom. Similarly, God allows human beings to choose between good and evil in real life, and people must accept the consequences of their choice. The supplements that deal specifically with demons and devils make it quite clear that the afterlife for characters who are condemned to the Abyss or the Nine Heels is in no way pleasant, and may even be short.

Tracy Hickman, one of the main authors of the Dungeons & Dragons Dragonlance book series, and a Christian with conservative politics and theology, has written a number of articles defending and discussing D&D from a Christian perspective. <ref name="Waldron">The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture: [http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/art9-roleplaying.html "Role-Playing Games and the Christian Right"]</ref> Others within the Dungeons & Dragons community responded by writing other defenses from rationalist perspectives or other perspectives or by writing parodies such as "Chess: The Subtle Sin: Should Christians play chess?". Some argue that in response to the perceived Christian persecution of the Dungeons & Dragons, darker themed, deliberately counter-cultural games appeared in reaction such as [[Call of Cthulhu]] which is based on the horror writing of [[H.P. Lovecraft]] and set in the [[Cthulhu|Cthulhu Mythos]]<ref name="Waldron"/>, or [[Vampire: the Masquerade]], where players act the roles of undead vampires.

====Possible Areas of Concern for Christians====
D&D is a "game of pretend" whereby players pretend to take certain actions and the DM adjudicates the results of those actions. By its very nature, this leaves players open to experiment with various moral quandaries and social dilemmas. This is a valuable tool for players to learn the implications and results of playing both good and evil characters. However, the possibility exists that such an experience may not be beneficial or appropriate for everyone--in particular, persons who already have difficulty separating fantasy with reality might be able to be helped by the game, but it could also make things worse. Due to the nature of roleplaying games, a great deal depends upon the individual group in question; a given game of Dungeons and Dragons might be benign from a Christian standpoint, or it might involve activities and ideas that a Christian would find profoundly distasteful.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://aquela.com/roleplaying/r&r/index.html Religion and Roleplaying]
* [http://www.fansforchrist.org/new/articles/article03a.htm Christians Playing Dungeons and Dragons] - An informed Christian's perspective on Dungeons & Dragons.
* [http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/Essays/Ethic2.html Ethics in Fantasy: Morality and D&D] - Tracey Hickman's essay concerning Christian perspectives and common misunderstandings about Role-Playing Games
* [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3691 Full text of H.G. Wells ''Little Wars; a game for boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty']

[[Category:Games]]

User talk:LowKey

2009-01-12T03:06:43Z

LowKey: /* The December open letter. */ new section

Quote mining

2009-01-09T05:19:10Z

LowKey: changed to word of less negative connotation

'''Quote mining''' is the practice of using the words of partisans against them to undermine support for the viewpoint held by the partisans.
Quote mining does not refer simply to taking a [[quote out of context]], as there is already a well-understood phrase for that. Rather, the charge of "quote mining" reflects an objection to quoting someone for criticizing his own belief system, on the theory that if he still believes in the system then it is somehow unfair to quote his criticism of it.

Another objection sometimes made is that it is wrong to ignore evidence which supports a partisan viewpoint when evidence which disproves it is found. This is clearly an anti-scientific notion, as it violates the modern principle of [[falsifiability]]: no amount of evidence in favor of a scientific theory has merit if even a single counterexample can be found (see [[Thomas Kuhn]]).

[[Evolutionists]] are notorious for expressing objection when their quotes are used against them. This reveals the [[dogma]]tic nature of their [[faith]], because real scientists always welcome evidence which contradicts mainstream theories (see [[scientific method]]).
While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to [[discrediting attack|discredit]] him, [[evolutionist]]s do not feel their quotes should be used to criticize evolution, and have invented the term "quote mining" to criticize that practice.
They have tried to make ''quote mining'' a [[pejorative]] term, but the neologism has yet to be recognized by major dictionaries

==Origin, in TalkOrigins.org==
According to the pro-evolution site TalkOrigins.org, quote mining is "the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, 'which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored.'"

Quotes that illustrate self-contradiction are thereby considered, by the inventors of the term, to be quote mining whether the self-contradiction is real or not.

The term seems to be used to suggest or claim that people have ''deliberately'' or ''negligently'' taken facts material to a quote out of context, with the result that the quote no longer stands for its original proposition. Allegations of quote mining are controversial,<ref>For example, the TalkOrigins.org Quote Mine Project documents many fallacious quotes, but the classification is controversial.</ref> since it implies [[scienter]] - that is, either intent to deceive, or disregard to the possibility of deception. This distinguishes quote mining from more general, run of the mill, quoting out of context; while the latter involves no misrepresentation of facts material to the quote's meaning, the former does.

The origins of the term are unknown, but it appears to date from the late 1990s.<ref>According to [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html TalkOrigins.org], the first known use was in 1996.</ref>
It is not recognized by any dictionaries.
Its most common use is by evolutionists who claim that creationists misrepresent quotes from scientists.

A common reason why TalkOrigins.org makes claims of quote mining appears to be that they choose make a false claim of quote mining when noted evolutionists have moments of candor and point out the various significant deficiencies of the evolutionary position rather than admit the weakness and/or falsity of the evolutionary position.

==Is Quote Mining Wrong?==
This section discusses merely whether quote mining is ''wrong'', not whether it ''exists'' or ''has been practiced'' by any individuals.

===Myth===
Many people, especially in the legal and political fields, use quotes by others against them. There is nothing objectionable about this practice, and the term quote-mining could apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign.

===Fact: Defining Quote Mining===
While quoting relevant parts of judicial decisions is indeed widespread, and lawyers and politicians often quote one's own arguments against them to show a contradiction, "quote mining" as used is something else entirely. Quote mining implies selective quotation that, either negligently or purposefully, omits relevant parts from an argument. For example, consider the following ''invented'' quotation from an imaginary legal case.

:''"In the State of Commonwealth, it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information." Smith v. Jones, 129 Commonwealth Reporter 332 (Commonwealth 2008).''

Now let us consider two quotations of the case.

A deceptive quotation uses an ellipsis to camouflage a point of authority that goes against one's argument.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may... trade on insider information."''

An honest argument still quotes the authority source, but quotes all relevant parts.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information," but Party X was not a corporate officer.''

This should demonstrate that an accusation of "quote mining" is not merely an indictment for appealing to authority, a well-settled tactic indeed - the accusation is of ''appealing to authority in a selective manner, so as to distort and confound the actual meaning of the authority.

===Fact: The Law on an Attorney's Quote Mining===
Attorneys are under a well-settled duty not to misrepresent authority to a court of law. In essence, they may not "quote mine." By way of example, a Federal Circuit Court in 2003 disciplined an attorney for selectively quoting elements of a [[court]] [[Opinion (Law)|opinion]]. The attorney, faced with a charge of contempt of court for delaying filing a motion by ''twelve days'' when the court ordered her to do so "forthwith," explained that, by settled law,<ref name="ny">The attorney cited City of New York v. McAllister Brothers, Inc., 278 F.2d 708, 710.</ref> "Forthwith means immediately, without delay, or as soon may be accomplished by reasonable exertion."<ref name="ny" /> She neglected to cite the following sentence, which explained that "forthwith" generally means, "within twenty-four hours,"<ref name="ny" /> apparently hoping that, without this qualification, the court would read "forthwith" as implying ''no time constraint other than necessity.''

The court which received the attorney's brief was not amused. In censuring the attorney, they wrote,
{{cquote|The effect of Walser's editing of this material and ignoring the Supreme Court decision that dealt with the issue - a decision that seriously weakened her argument - was to give the Court a misleading impression of the state of the law on the point. She eliminated material that indicated that her delay in filing the motion for reconsideration had not met the court's requirement that she file "forthwith," and presented the remaining material in a way that overstated the basis for her claim that a "forthwith" filing requirement meant she could take whatever time would be reasonable in the circumstances. This distortion of the law was inconsistent with and violated the standards of Rule 11.<ref>Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 315 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003).</ref>}}

Rule 11 forbids attorneys from arguing in a misleading manner. Clearly, this federal circuit thinks that "quote mining" is a reprehensible act contrary to intellectual and academic rigor. There is ''indeed'' something objectionable about the practice, and the term "quote mining" ought not "apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign."

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html Selected Creation/Evolution Quotes]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes.asp Creation Quotes] list from [[Answers in Genesis]]
*[http://creationwiki.org/%28Talk.Origins%29_Quote-mining (Talk.Origins) Quote-mining - CreationWiki]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html The Quote Mine Project] - hosted by the [[talk.origins]] archive

==See Also==
*[[Politics of personal destruction]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
[[category:Law]]
[[category:Rhetoric]]
[[category:evolution]]

Coin

2009-01-09T04:58:51Z

LowKey: Usually deceased? Maybe in the US. But c'wealth coins depict the curren HOS.

A '''coin''' is a unit of [[currency]] which has the approximate value of the metal it contains. Coins of [[copper]] or [[bronze]] have less value than those of [[silver]] or [[gold]].

Generally a coin is stamped with the face of a nation's ruler, while the reverse has some official insignia.

Coins are often used to decide who goes first in games like [[American Football|American football]].
The front of a coin is called "heads" and the reverse "tails" when flipping a coin.

[[Category:Currency]]

Talk:Gun control

2009-01-09T03:17:54Z

LowKey: /* Australia */ is that what you mean?

[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (30th December 2008)

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. '''''Conserv'''apedia'' is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Can we please address the "far more rural" error? I've looked into this, and USA and Aus have not kept demographic data in the same manner, so it takes a lot of interpretation to arrive at any kind of comparison at all. USA lists population distribution by Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan, and Aus lists distribution by Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. The percentage of USA's population in Non-Metropolitan areas (which would include but not be exclusively composed of rural areas) is about 10.5%. The percentage of Australia's population in Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas is about 12%. Again these areas include rural and non-rural. So there ''could be'' a difference of about 1.5 percentage points. The "far more rural" statement as it stands is misleading and groundless. Regardless, shouldn't the editor who inserted the comparisons (rural/non rural, and drug culture) be the one to substantiate those comparisons, especially as they have been challenged? I am going to modify the "rural" statement for now, pending better data.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

: Your statistics are meaningless, because USA cities are much bigger than Australian cities. The slums of Sydney are nothing compared with the slums of Chicago, where homicide rates are much higher.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::Then talk about population density and be done with it, even comparing the ''urban'' population densities if that is more in keeping with what you are trying to get across. But Australia is '''not''' "far more rural" than USA as the the population distribution (by percentage) is much the same. Australian cities may have fewer people than USA cities, but Australian rural areas have '''far''' fewer people than USA rural areas. Outside of our cities and towns, this is a very empty country as far as human occupation goes. We actually have stations (ranches to you) comparable in size to the state of Texas, generally populated by a family and some workers. I don't understand why you insist on that false statement.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:43, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::: Your rant is bizarre; it only reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the U.S. Taken in the context of crime rates, the "far more rural" description is apt. You have not suggested an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::::Please don’t be insulting. It was not a rant. I was (and am) quite calm and rational. Maybe the station/Texas comparison in the middle made it a little disjointed, but that is no excuse for calling it bizarre. I was pointing out that Australia’s rural areas are extremely sparsely populated and you say that this reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the USA, which makes no sense. The fact is that even in Australia’s remote areas, most of the population is concentrated in mining towns and such, and is therefore not rural. So the statistic of 12% for Australia was extremely generous as it could well be a mere fraction of that, in which case Australia is less rural than USA.

Whatever the context, a description is not apt if it is not accurate, and you have not in any way shown it to be accurate. If you wish to reflect the overall comparative crime rates, then maybe you should do so explicitly.

Can I perhaps ask you to clearly define what you mean by the statement that Australia is far more rural than the USA? I would have thought it referred to the percentage of the population that are in rural communities (as defined by the predominant activities of the community), but perhaps you are referring to something else.

Also, I didn’t suggest an improvement because I made the change to the article myself, as you well know because you censored it. But if you want a suggestion, either state the truth about comparative “rurality” or excise the statement altogether.

By the way, the article is attempting to make the case that gun control has effected Australian crime, culture and politics over the last decade or so but why should the effect start then, when gun control has been pretty tight for several decades at least? In the 1950’s in Western Australia my father had to fill out a form at the local police station before he could buy ammunition for his rifles (.303 and .22).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:06, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Okay, I had to guess what you meant. I am sure will will let me know. There a probably quite a number of ways of stating your point, but "far more rural" is just not accurate unless you are using terms in an uncommon fashion.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:17, 8 January 2009 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== An Unbiased View (I hope)==

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control).
Right.

Pro:

:Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

:Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

:Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

:Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

:While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

:Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

:Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

:Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

:Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: Your "pros" and "cons" are quite biased, unfortunately. You do not mention how [[gun control]] has repeatedly led to genocide and socialism. You omit the main reason liberals push for gun control: they want the political effects that more government control brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: Well, I didn't really do that much research, and I preferred to think about gun control on a personal level; I think it's a long shot to predict politcal change based on whether people have guns or not, and I don't see how gun control leads to genocide and socialism. But it's your wiki, so unless you want to I won't debate any further. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: ETrundel, I thought you were trying to be substantive. I wouldn't have bothered responding to you if I knew you were going to wave off a substantive point about genocide like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Trundel has presented the liberal POV of the pros and cons. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:I am trying to be substantive (sorry for any misunderstandings); from what I know of genocides, taking various African countries as examples, genocide is usually the result of the fact that every man and his dog has a gun stashed away somewhere - but this is not as a result of gun control, or the lack of it - rather, the fact that shady countries (for example, I believe China finds an eager weapons market in areas such as Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa) find that they can easily unload all their unwanted weapons, legally or otherwise. I have read the section on gun control and genocide, and I accept than unarmed groups are certainly easier targets for the army; however, I don't believe that the army would have particular trouble with an armed group either, and I believe that resistance can make things worse; more than one family has been murdered because a shot came from their house. And take the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2; when Jews began to fight back against the Germans taking them to concentration camps, by the end of the battle (which lasted just a month) over 10,000 Jews lay dead, and another 50,000 were shipped off to extermination (not concentration) camps. I suppose it all depends on your point of view; as one historian put it, whether it is better to 'die on your feet or live on your knees'. In my opinion, it is better to die on your feet; however, all too often this leads to people dying on their knees as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and that you understand that I agree with the points stated in the article. However, I feel that the only way of preventing genocide by having guns is when the guns actually act as a deterrent, preventing conflict (rather than being used in a conflict). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Completely incorrect. The mass murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda was carried out primarily with machetes. If every man had a gun stashed somewhere, machetes would have been useless. You yourself have acknowledged that unarmed groups are certainly easier targets. Did the Jews in the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprisng]] have guns? How many? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::: If every man had a gun stashed in their house, the people committing the genocide would have had guns too. How would you expect the average Rwandan to get a gun anyway, let alone be able to use it? I've done a little research, and it turns out that the people doing the killing were militiamen, who would probably be more experienced with a gun than those people. I really don't think that more guns would've solved that problem.

::: I am against gun control for all of the reasons listed by ETrundel, not for reasons that it would lead to socialism and genocide. I agree that it is hard to predict political change that would stem from gun control. His was a good summary of the gun control contreversy, so why was it shot down like that? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:35, 6 January 2009 (EST) P.S. I changed this section back to its original name.

:::: JArneal, it is a historical fact that gun control has led to socialism and genocide. Please learn with an open mind first, and then comment. Simple logic explains this historical fact: there are far more people against genocide than in favor of it, and if guns are widely owned then it's clear which side would win. Take the guns away, and there is nothing to stop genocide. One more point: "controversy", not "contreversy". Not a problem if someone is earnestly trying to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: That does make sense, but genocide usually targets the minority of people in a population, like in the most famous example of genocide, Hitler's final solution. In that situation, it is clear which side would win: Hitler's troops. In instances like Pol Pot's mass genocide, people who were killed were first isolated. It is unlikely that word of what was happening was widespread enough to encourage a revolution against the government. Guns would not have solved the problem. It is the regime that causes genocide, not gun control. I guess access to guns might have some minor effect in opposing genocide, but by the time an evil regime is in place, it's too late for those people unless there is foreign intervention. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 20:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== What is the conservative position on gun control? ==

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

'''I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism.''' The debate seems to often get
contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

'''In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes.''' The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture
and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html
On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are [[salvation|saved]] and
not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a
very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in
Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian
theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that
revolutions often deal with individual liberties. '''To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate.''' The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended
dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA
decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely
achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American
Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should
have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust
British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American
revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being
more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote
revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Logic, the [[Bible]], preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against [[gun control]]. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: User:Conservative, many [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]]. It depends in part on why someone is a [[YEC]], and also on how open his mind is to [[conservative]] values. If someone is a [[YEC]] based on [[materialism]], then that person is not likely to accept some of the abstract concepts of [[conservativism]]. If someone is a [[YEC]] because they dislike a religion that they perceive not to be a [[YEC]], then that person is as likely to be liberal as anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, logicians state that you must use the principle of weighing the total evidence. PJR is against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle plus takes a high view of Scripture. These are certainly not liberal views. Although I certainly like PJR and recommended he be made Sysop and have talked to him quite amicably via Skype several times, I do not know him well enough to say whether he is a conservative or moderate. At the same time, I do see you failing to address the anti-abortion and ant-homosexuality views of PJR as being indicative of you not having a good case as far as him being a liberal. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, I don't know PJR's full position on abortion or the [[homosexual agenda]]. I do know that the political positions he has taken, such as in support of [[gun control]], are [[liberal]]. I also know that a substantial percentage of [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]] and did vote for [[Obama]]. If one is drawn to [[YEC]] for [[materialism]] reasons, then that person will tend to be materialistic on other matters, such as [[economics]] and [[gun control]] and other types of government control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::Andy, see comments in the section below called: "Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::Andy, I reread your post. YEC is a polar opposite from the philosophy of materialism which posits there is no supernatural entities. On the other hand, can a person who is YEC be materialistic? For example, be greedy? The answer is of course yes. I don't think you know enough about PJR to claim he is materialistic and logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. Furthermore, unless PJR is going to inherit a lot of money from a rich uncle if he remains a YEC or some other implausible scenario, I do not think you made a compelling case that PJR or many other people for that matter become YECs for materialistic reasons. Again, logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Conservative, YEC is a material-focused viewpoint. Some (not all) YECs are materialistic, and they are likely to take materialistic positions on other issues, such gun control and wealth redistribution. Put another way, they support or are indifferent about many of Obama's liberal positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 6 January 2009 (EST)
(outdent) YEC and materialism (the philosophical position, not greed) are mutually exclusive. The first begins with the explicit belief in a supernatural creator, the second begins with the explicit disbelief in anything supernatural. You argument holds no water at all. Please abandon the ad hominem attacks and address the serious attempts to improve the article. I am reminded of a Christian speaker I once heard who said "We are given the full armour of God, and too many of us spend most of our time polishing our armour or attacking one another." Instead of dismissing PJR's observations because you don't think he's conservative enough, address them specifically.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:11, 8 January 2009 (EST)

== I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to...... ==

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to to look studies which used the approach of [[regression analysis]] to study the matter of gun control.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation ==

Here is an excellent essay arguing that socialism is often advanced through excessive regulation and not merely through the state owning more and more property: http://gunowners.org/op0330.htm The essay argues that despite Thatcher selling off state owned enterprises the UK became more socialistic through excessive regulation and that gun control was a part of this mindset. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Sounds like an article worth reading!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I was doing a Google search and it appears as if the following may be true: When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK, the Firearms Act of 1988 was passed which I assume favored gun control given the context of the passage I read. Does anyone know if Thatcher (who was pretty conservative) was opposed or in favor of the FireArms act of 1988? If she was for the act, then I would argue that the road to more socialism may be often be the result of excessive regulation despite the state selling off state enterprises in the short term. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, it's irrelevant which position Thatcher took, who would have merely been reacting to media pressure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::Andy, Thatcher was known for a lot of things but being spineless was not one of them -two of her nicknames were "the iron lady" and Atilla the Hen". The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "Margaret Thatcher's conservative government responded to the killings by enacting the most draconian firearms act ever adopted in Britain, including outlawing semiautomatic weapons altogether."[http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books%20and%20News/Guns%20and%20Bobbies] Now you might not feel comfortable with conservatives passing gun control but it appears as if it happened here. I do think once should be a optimistic realist and the reality is that a government headed by a staunch conservative passed gun control in the UK. Of course, the question is still, "Does conservative principles allow for gun control laws to be passed". That is an entirely separate question. I do not think liberal governments adequately protect citizens so I am against stringent gun control control laws. I also see gun ownership as a means to help prevent genocide and a police state from abusing its citizens.I think the case of Thatcher bolsters PJR's argument that conservatives passed gun control in Australia. However, I do see where one can argue that Australian conservatives are really more political moderates on the whole since they have gun control and I believe they have socialized medicine as well. That is a debate I will leave to you and PJR!! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::''' Andy, I do think that at present the United States has one of the worst overall policies in the Western World when it comes to a gun control and allowing conditions that promote violence. ''' We allow the media to push gratuitous violence and desensitize people. We also allow the media to push sexual content which often leads to fatherless homes because it leads to out of marriage sex and the fathers leaving the mothers to hold the bag. And I have read that 70% of all rapist and murders come from fatherless homes and this data is largely mirrored here: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/fatherless.html ''' This policy to me is like allowing people to have gasoline, allowing the media to push dangerous ideas on how gasoline should be used, and then telling the police they have to deal with the situation the best they can.''' It is a foolish policy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

*More of this argument without end? The Supreme Court of the United States has decided this issue! Citizens have the ''absolute right to keep and bear arms and cannot be forbidden or be unreasonably stopped from doing so.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::TK, there are about 6 billion people who live outside the USA. And there is certainly nothing wrong with learning lessons from history as far as other nations. Next, the laws are always changing so there is nothing wrong with vigilance. With that said, I certainly am happy that gun ownership is still a right in the United States but we do have to reduce our societies level of violence because it is high compared to many nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

*We learned here, in America, to reject the Old World, and its ways. That said, I think we can all be more productive creating, rather than keeping this argument alive another month. The boss has had his say, so has everyone else. Repeating the same another hundred times isn't going to change anyone's mind. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Try correlating gun control vs. mass murder, and you'll see that the countries with the most effective confiscation of guns from their citizens had the highest rates of genocide.

It's also very hard for a dictator to invade a democratic country when the majority of its citizens are armed. Switzerland is not protected only by mountains and "neutrality". And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists.

Crime in NYC would go down dramatically if every law-abiding citizen were allowed to get a gun and carry it around with them, loaded. Especially in high-crime poverty-stricken areas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:''And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists'' If suicide bombers are at all effective in what they do, the first anybody knows about them is when they detonate their bombs. What use will these Uzi-toting maidens be then? [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)