Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

An Inconvenient Truth

2007-10-05T11:27:58Z

Mudkip:

[[Image:Capitalistexploitation.JPG|thumb|200px|right|Al Gore has created a way to [[profit]] from [[global catastrophe]].<ref>''New Mexico Daily Lobo'', September 28, 2007, pg. 8.</ref>]]

'''"An Inconvenient Truth"''' is a documentary about [[global warming]] by former Vice President [[Al Gore]]. It is an entirely acurate account which gives all the rational arguments in favor of supporting the sort of "[[greenhouse gas]]" reductions required by the [[Kyoto Protocol]].

The film ignores the evidence that atmospheric temperature is cyclical in nature and has gone up and down hundreds of times in the last million years (see [[climate cycles]]).

According to the Madison, Wisconsin ''Capital Times'', [[Reid Bryson]], founding chairman of the department of meteorology at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the [[Gaylord Nelson]] Institute for Environmental Studies and also known as the father of scientific climatology considers global warming a bunch of hooey. Reid said, "Don't make me throw up...it's not science..." <ref>[http://robertsteely.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=abc72f45-f361-42a9-b73c-c01a506f1437 Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'], Noel Sheppard, June 18, 2007. Retrieved from Townhall.com June 20, 2007.</ref>

Reid said,
{{Cquote|There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide. <ref>''Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey'', Samara Kalk Derby, The Capital Times, 6/18/2007. </ref>}}

Author Noel Sheppard cites a new study in ''Science Magazine'' <ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5786/452 Climate Change: Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?], Christopher W. Landsea, Bruce A. Harper, Karl Hoarau, John A. Knaff, ''Science'', 28 July 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5786, pp. 452 - 454.</ref> written by a group of scientists including two members of the [[National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration]] that refutes this central contention in Al Gores "[[schlockumentary]]" that the "apparition called global warming is responsible for an upsurge in hurricane activity and intensity," including the [[Hurricane Katrina]] disaster. <ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/michael_moore_issues_iraq_with.html The Inconvenient Truth: Hurricanes and Global Warming], By Noel Sheppard, ''American Thinker'', August 02, 2006.</ref>

==Scientific inaccuracies in the film==

Copied verbatim from the ''Chicago Sun-Times''
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

{|border=1 cellpadding=3
|'''Gore claim'''
|'''Peer-reviewed science'''
|----
|Gore claims that the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame.
|Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.
|----
|Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame.
|Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes.
|Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes.
|However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts.
|However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa.
|----
|Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet.
|But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain. In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
|----
|Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming.
|Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
|----
|}

== Awards ==
Despite its many scientific inaccuracies, the film has received several awards:

<small>*Academy Awards (The Oscars) 2007
*Chicago Film Critics Association
*Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association
*Florida Film Critics 2006
*Kansas City Film Critics Awards 2006
*Las Vegas Film Critics Circle 2006
*National Board of Review
*New York Film Critics Online
*New York Film Critics Society
*Ohio Film Critics Awards 2006
*Oklahoma Film Critics Circle Awards 2006
*Online Film Critics 2006
*Phoenix Film Critics Circle 2006
*Satellite Awards (Nominated) 2006
*St. Louis Film Critics Awards 2006
*Toronto Film Critics Circle (Nominated) 2006
*Utah Film Critics Awards 2006
*Washington D.C. Film Critics Association 2006
</small>

==References==
<small><references/></small>

==See also==

*[[Runaway greenhouse effect]]
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
[[Category:Movies]][[Category:Global Warming]]

United States Senate

2007-10-05T11:26:26Z

Mudkip:

<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="red">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>
<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="orange">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>
<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="yellow">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>
<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="green">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>
<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="blue">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>
<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="indigo">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>
<center><div style="text-decoration:blink"><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><font color="purple">RAPTOR JESUS </font></big></big></big></big></big></big></big></div></center>

Conservapedia:Team Airborne

2007-10-05T11:25:56Z

Mudkip:

Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math

2007-10-05T11:24:51Z

Mudkip:

Conservapedia:The Supreme Court

2007-10-05T11:24:34Z

Mudkip:

Conservapedia:American Government Fall 2007

2007-10-05T11:24:13Z

Mudkip:

Big Bang theory

2007-10-05T11:23:10Z

Mudkip:

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific theory explaining the acceleration of matter throughout the Universe. Big bang theories are actually a ''class'' of scientific models that describe the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html WMAP Cosmology 101: Age of the Universe]</ref> (although this number has changed several times throughout recent history). It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation (or CMBR). This radiation was subsequently discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body). Pensiaz and Wilson were awarded a [[Nobel Prize]] in 1978 for their work.

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. In other words, the Big Bang describes the expansion of space and time. Big Bang theorists state that the Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref> and galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

== Big Bang Theory Dissent Letter ==
The Big Bang Theory has had many dissenters including the British astronomer Sir [[Fred Hoyle]], the Nobel Prize winner [[Hannes Alfven]], and astronomers [[Geoffrey Burbidge]] and [[Halton Arp]]. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref> It was Hoyle who sarcastically coined the term during a radio broadcast.

In 2004, a ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ disputing the big bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal [[New Scientist]]. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224482.900</ref> The dissent letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. <ref>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</ref> Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Big Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

==Starlight Problem for the Big Bang Theory==
The [[starlight problem]] is an argument against the Big Bang Theory. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp</ref> The [[creation science]] organization [[Answers in Genesis]] has stated the following regarding the starlight problem for the Big Bang Theory and the work of [[Charles W. Misner]] is cited who published his work in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]'':
{{cquote|The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current [cosmic microwave background] CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other? This is a light-travel–time problem.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp</ref>}}

Recognizing this difficulty, physicist [[Alan Guth]] put forth a possible solution he named [[cosmic inflation]]. According to this theory, during the universe's first 10<sup>-35</sup> of a second, a period of extremely rapid, exponential inflation occured, expanding the universe by a factor of at least 10<sup>26</sup>. It would be the equivalent of taking a pea and expanding it to the size of our solar system in a time less than a millionth of a blink of an eye. If this occurred, it would mathematically allow for the uniformity of the [[CMBR]] - the vast distances were in thermodynamical contact before the rapid inflation. <ref>http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000045</ref> <ref>http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24768</ref> The mechanism that would cause this sudden expansion is not known.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
Young earth creationist scientists contest the Big Bang Theory stating that it is scientifically unsound. In fact, they are just butthurt that their bible-based bullshit is not tought in school.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref> Some Christian apologists who believe in an old earth, such as [[William Craig]] use the Big Bang as an apologetic, arguing that it proves that the universe had a beginning. <ref>Strobel, Lee. ''The Case for a Creator''. Zondervan, 2004. </ref>

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

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Cable News Network

2007-10-05T11:21:27Z

Mudkip: