Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Climate agenda

2014-02-16T06:23:35Z

NormaN:

The opening paragraph should be edited to reflect the actual history of climate change/global warming. References would also be nice.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 23:44, 13 February 2014 (EST)
:If "climate change" is defined as the same thing as [[global warming]], then this article should be a redirect. "Climate change" and "global warming" are both generic terms when interpreted literally. In these articles, both terms are being used as shorthand to refer to the anthropogenic global warming theory. This is of course a common media usage as well, perhaps because it lends itself to misleading terminology like "climate change denier" and "global warming denier." The climate has always been changing, and the greens didn't discover this. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 07:36, 14 February 2014 (EST)
::Please reread the last sentence of my edit, ''Climate change was still used to refer to the other changes thought to be caused by increased CO2.'' In the academic and research world’s, climate change and global warming are not synonymous. Global warming is one of the consequences of anthropogenic climate change. I’d like to think an encyclopedia would be able to differentiate between the two without promoting common misconceptions.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 11:03, 14 February 2014 (EST)
:::So much for my request to have this article reflect reality. If this isn’t bad enough, evolution is now being discussed in the opening paragraph of a climate change article. Is it too much to ask for references? This is required by the commandments after all. I even tried to find ''anything'' that could even provide a hint of evidence backing up the first paragraph, but alas, I was unsuccessful.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 12:00, 14 February 2014 (EST)
*"AGW" is a reasonably common way to refer to this phenomenia, and it is not nearly as misleading as either "climate change" or "global warming." Both of the later terms imply that the Earth has never warmed any reason other than industrial emissions. I suggest that the main article on this subject be located at [[anthropogenic global warming]], [[Climate change]] and [[global warming]] can be redirects or brief terminology articles. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/ The latest IPCC report] projects dramatically less warming than earlier reports did. The climate change apocalypse has apparently been averted, and the world saved. Yet the drive-by media can't be bothered to report it. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 03:04, 15 February 2014 (EST)
**[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=climate+change%2Cglobal+warming&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1980&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cclimate%20change%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bclimate%20change%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BClimate%20Change%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BClimate%20change%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BCLIMATE%20CHANGE%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cglobal%20warming%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bglobal%20warming%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BGlobal%20Warming%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BGlobal%20warming%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BGLOBAL%20WARMING%3B%2Cc0 Here is an ngram] on climate change vs. global warming. In the early 1990s, usage for the two terms was about equal. Later "climate change" became dominant. It's obvious someone made a political decision to change the name at some point. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 03:59, 15 February 2014 (EST)
:::Please explain to me using peer reviewed references how the terms climate change and global warming ''imply that the Earth has never warmed any reason other than industrial emissions.'' Please read the IPCC report from the main source instead of filtering it through a fringe source like Anthony Watts. You’ll find he is misrepresenting the UN panel. I hope you didn’t spend too much time on your Google research. Please reread my last edit to the article and then realize my sources were from the fifties and seventies. Someone made a political decision? References? Good ones this time? It’s rather sad the opening paragraphs are allowed to remain, this article makes conservative Americans look very silly. And I for one don’t like it. --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 10:37, 15 February 2014 (EST)
::::And what is it that you don't like? And why is Anthony Watts a "fringe source"? Be specific. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:52, 15 February 2014 (EST)
:::::Let’s see. The opening paragraph starts with an unreferenced, completely false assertion and mentions evolution even though this is a climate change article. And the article continues along the same lines for several more sentences. I noticed Schlafly is making some of the most flagrant violations of the Conservapedia commandments yet nothing is being done to correct this abuse. Anthony Watts is a meteorologist without any formal education in climate science yet he is used as an authoritative source on climate change by Conservapedia. I call him a fringe source because his conclusions concerning climate change put him within the fringe of academics or pseudo-academics who agree with the 1% of legitimate climate researchers who deny anthropogenic climate change. --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 23:41, 15 February 2014 (EST)
::::::Well, let's see this one. First, climate change or global warming - the "anthropogenic" kind - is a proven fraud, and I could not care less that 99% of "legitimate" climate researchers think the world is coming to an end because someone in New Jersey is running all over town in an SUV; ''consensus'' cannot alter ''facts''. And the fact that it is a fraud is a combination of emails among these "scientists" stating their intentions to deliberately alter the data so they can push a political agenda upon the world in general and the United States in particular; Anthony Watts' posting of images which show that the "scientists" primary source of temperature-taking were machines deliberately placed near sources of man-made heat which ''skewed the data''; and clowns like Al Gore who stated that the North Pole would be ice free ''right now'', when it's not.
:::::::Second, you need to get something straight here, Norman. We're not going to post a liberal agenda on this website. We're not going to change our position on global warming or anything else that the church of liberalism loves; to do so we would have to be complicit in a lie, and we're not going to tolerate it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:48, 16 February 2014 (EST)
::::::::Okay. Facts don’t matter to you, got it. What emails are you talking about? SUVs? New Jersey? The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project demonstrated Watts didn’t know what he was talking about when he complained about the placement of climate stations. He promised to accept the conclusions of BEST but when his opinions were completely demolished he reneged. This is Conservapedia, I understand the liberal agenda won’t be posted here, give me some credit, I’m not stupid. That being said, I’d like to think conservatives, like yourself, could accept scientific reality. By the way, are you planning on doing anything about the atrocious opening sentences of this article? Don’t you think everyone should follow the Conservapedia commandments?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 01:23, 16 February 2014 (EST)

Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment

2014-02-16T05:44:25Z

NormaN: Add reference list

GRACE is a non-profit organization made up of highly trained and experienced multi-disciplinary professionals who seek to educate and empower the Christian community to identify, confront and respond to the sin of child abuse. <ref>http://netgrace.orf</ref>

GRACE provides prevention training, response assistance, consultations and independent investigations for churches and Christian organizations. <ref>http://netgrace.org/about-us/</ref>

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

Talk:Chevrolet Volt

2014-02-16T04:57:02Z

NormaN:

== Fact tags. ==

Those claims strike me as controversial. If they're so well-known, documenting them should not be a challenge. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 20:17, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:I've provided you with references. In the future I'd stick to topics that you have some knowledge about. The fact that you didn't know what a supercar was shows that you have little if any knowledge about the automotive world. [[User:CraigF2|CraigF2]] 13:57, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::Your reference said nothing about the electrocution claim and stated clearly that there was as yet no scientifically proven link between hybrid vehicles and health risks. I've edited the article to reflect that. And I know what a "supercar" is. I just think it's a silly word. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 14:00, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::: ''"An electric shock caused by an accident-damaged EV could kill an imprudent approacher."'' [http://www.cars21.com/article.view.php?Id=344]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:20, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
::::Great. Put it in the article. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 14:28, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

There are many incorrect and unsupported factoids in this article.

1. All cars emit harmful radiation; it is a matter of how much. It is also important to remember AC EMF is much more harmful than DC EMF based on the simple and basic principle that AC current induces electric current in conductors, and also people, while DC generally does not. The Volt’s large DC battery under the driver and passengers is not inducing any current through the body of the car or the passengers. AC current is used by the Volt, like all cars, primarily under the hood.
http://www.lessemf.com/pamphlet.html

2. The engine can couple itself to the drive train under certain circumstances to improve efficiency.
Once the Volt’s battery is depleted, the engine fires up and clutches to the generator to produce the power required to drive the car. Above 70 mph, when the generator couples to the ring gear, the engine gets a more efficient direct mechanical connection to the wheels.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1010_unbolting_the_chevy_volt_to_see_how_it_ticks/#ixzz2PXuPwSce

3. As for the car’s alleged high inefficiency, the Volt is rated at 37 mpg while using the gasoline engine. Not bad for a 3700 lb car, which by the way does have a drive shaft.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/11/volt-20101124.html

4. The Volt is subsidized, but not through factory rebates. Someone who purchases, not a leases, can qualify for a tax rebate of up to $7500.00 using form IRS 8936. If someone buys a Volt and their tax is under $7500.00 they will not receive the full rebate.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8936.pdf

5. I would like to see the math concerning the alleged $100,000+ it is costing GM to produce the Volt. Every new car model is subject to development costs. Wonder what the development of the new Chevy Corvette cost? Corvettes are out sold by Volts yet it is considered to be a very successful car.

6. Based on what has been written in this article, it seems to me the person(s) know rather little about automobiles. And remember, the Volt has the highest rate of owner satisfaction. Not bad, eh?
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/01/survey-finds-chevrolet-volt-owners-most-satisfied/

7. I’d like to see this article conform to the Conservapedia Commandments. i.e. true and verifiable, cite sources, etc. The liberal/homosexual thing comes to mind, sounds like opinion, not fact.
--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 21:35, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

:The fact that [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/10/Insight--GMs-Volt---The-ugly-math-of-low-sales--high-costs the $1.2 billion cost of developing of this car] is unlikely to ever be recouped certainly belongs in the article. The Volt is all about politics, a way for GM to present itself as "green." Electric cars are notorious money losers. They exist primarily [http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/autos/gm-chevy-volt-price/ to meet a California regulation]. Even if the techology made sense, GM is run by the auto workers union. So it will inevitably lose even more money. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:04, 28 January 2014 (EST)
::The most recent edits concerning the development costs and an alleged response to California regulations are simply opinions unsupported by factual evidence. For this reason the last two sentences of the opening paragraph should be removed unless quality references are used. I’d like to see the math used by Reuters and an updated factual assertion from the WSJ.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 22:31, 29 January 2014 (EST)
:::Reuters and WSJ are where you get business news from. If something fits your agenda its "fact," and otherwise it's "opinion"? This is just word games. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:16, 30 January 2014 (EST)
::::Yes, Reuters and the WSJ provide news. Yet Reuters didn’t show their math and even admitted the limitations of their so-called conclusions. Your WSJ reference is dated, maybe try to obtain something more recent?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 20:35, 30 January 2014 (EST)

==Rules proposal==
I think Norman brought up some valid points about this particular vehicle, as well as Peter. I think green energy politics may be involved with this one, but I don't have the cites to back the allegation up. Setting that aside, there's going to be pros and cons with this and any other car on the road, and this article just isn't up to par. So here's a proposal on something akin to rules for a layout on this and any other article about cars and trucks.
:1. Describe the car itself. This needs to be a physical description of the car, including company making it; where it's made; years of manufacture; performance packages; wheelbase; powertrains; prices; MPG's; speed, and so on. Since the Volt is electric, how many batteries does it have? Does it have a generator engine? How far can it go on a charge?
:2. Describe the pros and cons of the vehicle; describe why people like it, and why others don't. Is the car very good, or is it just another lemon? For citations, limit yourself to using official press releases from the automakers (Chevy in this case); reputable publications (''Car and Driver'', ''Motor Trend'', ''Consumer Reports'', etc). If you use a blog citation, make sure that the writer direct connections to the above publications or is a respected member of the auto community (i.e. Chip Foose, Kammie Edelbrock, Jeff Gordon, etc). [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)
:3. As to the politics involving the Chevy Volt, place it within a separate sub-topic heading. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:54, 31 January 2014 (EST)
::I concur. --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 10:52, 31 January 2014 (EST)
*I take I've been outvoted. Is Conservapedia is ready for conservative-bashing energy articles? I guess we will find out. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 12:10, 31 January 2014 (EST)
:Try not to see it as bashing conservative ideals, think of it as making factual and accurate articles that don’t make conservatives look miss-informed.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 12:51, 31 January 2014 (EST)
::Like you're here to make conservatives look more informed. Aren't we "[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=1073053&oldid=1073052 lunatic fringe climate deniers]"? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 22:29, 31 January 2014 (EST)
:::If someone parrots the climate change rants of Monckton and Limbaugh? Then yeah, I’d say they subscribe to the lunatic fringe. Not all conservatives hold such views. The original version of this article made a bunch of literally stupid claims. The Volt is a fashion accessory, it is subsidized with factory rebates, emits harmful radiation, likely to electrocute passengers in a crash, the engine is not hooked up to the wheels, liberals and homosexuals have limited knowledge of automobiles, etc. If a person took the earlier versions of this article as gospel, they’d look rather silly regurgitating their ''facts'' to a knowledgeable Volt owner. Looks like I’m actually trying to make conservatives ''look more informed''.
--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 00:36, 1 February 2014 (EST)
::::So Limbaugh and Fox News are the lunatic fringe, but of course you don't have you anything against the conservatives who agree with you. Who would they be, anyway? If I wanted to know what mainstream conservative opinion was on a given issue, I'd check ''The American Spectator'' ("[http://spectator.org/articles/35953/volt-sleeps-fishes Volt sleeps with the fishes]"), ''The Weekly Standard'' ("[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chevy-volt-still-not-selling_581956.html Chevy Volt: Still Not Selling]"), ''National Review'' ("[http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/242092/gm-volt-electric-lemon-greg-pollowitz The GM Volt Is an ‘Electric Lemon’]"), or ''Human Events'' ("[http://www.humanevents.com/2012/01/07/obama-blew-more-money-on-chevy-volt-than-entire-gdp-of-djibouti/ Obama blew more money on the Chevy Volt than entire GDP of Djibouti]"). These are all to the right of Fox News, so I assume they'd be extradoubleplus lunatic in your book. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 01:41, 1 February 2014 (EST)
:::::On this question of what's fringe and what's not, I note that Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Roy Spencer, [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100257206/climate-science-is-for-second-raters-says-worlds-greatest-atmospheric-physicist/ leading climate scientists all], are skeptics. Stephen Schneider, father of the global warming scare, wasn't a climate scientist at all, but a rather mechanical engineer. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 03:42, 1 February 2014 (EST)
::::::If a conservative, liberal, libertarian or authoritarian makes relevant and factual claims when discussing politics, environment, economics, etc. I’ll patiently listen. When people make crackpot claims I’ll display the contempt they deserve. By the way, lunatic fringe, fringe, skeptics and denial all have different meanings. I reserve lunatic fringe for the extraordinary. The Volt is not for everyone, that doesn’t mean the car is a failure. Many ridiculous claims were made in the articles you recommended. Auto plants periodically close for numerous reasons and the Hamtramck closure was not remarkable. One of the writers made a comparison to a BMW 3 series and the Volt. I own both, I prefer the Volt. And the tripe seemed to go on and on. The climate scientists you mentioned are among the 1% of climate scientists who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, but I’d rather discuss such matters on the relevant talk page. As for Dr. Schneider, he was ''also'' a mechanical engineer.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 13:19, 1 February 2014 (EST)
:::::::Am to understand that 99 percent of scientists agree with you, and only 1 percent agree with me? There was a survey a while back that found that an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that the Earth is warmer now than it was a century ago. But of course I don't dispute that, and neither does Lindzen, Christy, or Spencer. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)
I think we're getting a little further beyond the subject of the article. This article shouldn't be a debate ground for global warming - that's not really necessary. The article should be about the car. Link to global warming in a comment about how the car is targeted towards the environmentally friendly crowd - but what are we doing talking about Limbaugh and Fox on this talk page? Norman's right the original article was terrible and borderline parody. So far you guys have done a good job improving it.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 13:31, 1 February 2014 (EST)
:This car's primary notability is as a money pit. It's GM's attempt to follow California's idiotic regulations and appease the environmentalists. Sales are insignificant. The politics of this issue belongs in the lead section. We are not ''Consumer Reports''. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:30, 2 February 2014 (EST)
::Appease is probably the wrong word - it's them targeting a type of consumer that looks to purchase "environmentally friendlier" cars. The politics of a global warming debate do not belong on a car page, no. Norman's correct. We might not be Consumer Reports, but we also try not to be idiots.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:46, 2 February 2014 (EST)
:::I have already refuted this argument more than once. GM is selling only 100-to-200 vehicles a month. They'd have to sell something like 5,000 vehicles a month to justify their development costs. Please check the articles I link to above. Since GM went to court to try to avoid California's ZEV regulation, I assume that they were already aware that there was no demand even before they decided to go ahead with the project. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 01:37, 2 February 2014 (EST)
::::So it's for positive publicity? And what's wrong with that business model? And do you have another source confirming it? And you mentioning that the sales numbers are low isn't actually refuting any argument I made. It's just stating the fact that there are low sales. And how does going to court over regulation indicate knowledge of the future? They knew how successful marketing and an ad campaign could be because they were in a California court? Fascinating.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 07:50, 2 February 2014 (EST)
:::::I was responding to your claim that GM is, "targeting a type of consumer." I guess in a sense they are. But sales are so low, that's obviously not a big part of the equation. The car allows GM receive government subsidies, and that money is far more significant than what they are getting from consumers.[http://spectator.org/articles/35953/volt-sleeps-fishes] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 09:03, 2 February 2014 (EST)

==Further Reading==
The Conservative News and Views article is a travesty of journalism filled with numerous faults and should not be featured under ''Further reading''.

1. General Motors went into bankruptcy on June 1 2009 and emerged on 10 July 2009. A total of forty days. How this article could even imply otherwise is rather mystifying. No other entity other than the U.S. government stepped forward to assist GM, without reorganization funded by the feds; even Ford would have shut their doors.
http://www.motorsliquidationdocket.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/business/11auto.html?_r=0
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-09/ford-would-have-shut-without-auto-bailouts-rattner-says.html

2. GM received a government bailout that prevented the company from being broken up and terminating all their employees. As of 2012, GM employs 77,000 Americans, less than their heyday but still a lot more than zero, which is what they would have employed had the auto maker been allowed to break up. http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/07/american-made-index-which-automakers-affect-the-most-us-workers.html

3. ''...energy-efficient vehicles, otherwise known as The Volt''. This statement makes no sense, the Chevy Volt is not the only energy-efficient vehicle produced by GM.

4. The sales figures are also incorrect. There were 326 sold in 2010; 7671 sold in 2011; 23,461 in 2012 and 23,094 in 2013.
http://www.hybridcars.com/gm-sells-50000th-chevy-volt-in-october/
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/05/chevy-volt-sales-inch-nissan-leaf-sales-2013/

This embarrassment of an article should not be linked on Conservapedia. It gets almost nothing right and the people who read and believe the alleged facts will be sorely miss-informed.
--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 11:46, 31 January 2014 (EST)

==Only the Facts Please==
Unreferenced assertions concerning the general public and environmentalists have been inserted into an otherwise factual article. Could references please be provided?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 23:12, 1 February 2014 (EST)

==Electric vehicle generation of CO2 compared to a gasoline vehicle==
A gallon of gasoline equals 33.4 kWh and produces 19.6 lbs of CO2. Coal produces 2.08 lbs of CO2 per kWh. Using electricity generated by coal, a Volt will travel, on average, 123 miles on 33.4 kWh, the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline and generate 70 lbs of CO2. A car (BMW 328) driven by gasoline 123 miles at 27 mpg will use 4.6 gallons of gasoline and generate 90 lbs of CO2.
The Volt will produce 77% of the CO2 of a comparable gasoline powered car, when using natural gas the percentage will be much less. When accounting for CO2 during the production of gasoline compared to the much more efficient method of powering electrical plants, the difference will be even more profound. When the home owner uses solar panels or wind to generate electricity to power their home and drive a car 12,000 miles a year they will save thousands. Using an electric vehicle is indeed a game changer.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html
:If we could afford to buy [http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/sectors/item/4387-each-chevy-volt-costs-taxpayers-$250000 a $250,000 car] for all 7 billion people on the planet, global warming would be the least of our worries. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 20:03, 2 February 2014 (EST)
::Your reference is completely out of date. A selective use of math and assuming only Chevy Volts will use the batteries manufactured at the subsidized plants is very disingenuous. The Hamtramck plant also manufactures the Malibu. Where are these facts included in the math? Nowhere of course. Using MCC’s dubious math, selective reasoning and the increase in Volt sales, each car is now subsidized at $27,000. And this number itself is still completely inane. I’ll cut them some slack concerning the past government ownership of GM, but this doesn’t excuse anyone from using this dated reference to trash the Volt.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 19:37, 3 February 2014 (EST)

== Editing Compromise ==
Took SamHB’s advice and corrected the paragraph in question to include references. Hopefully everyone will be satisfied.
:It's a "game changer for the environment"? Oh my. Can we slobber over this vehicle some more? I hope GM and the UAW appreciate this work. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 20:01, 4 February 2014 (EST)
::Please review the edit once more, I said ''electric vehicles'', not Volt. --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 20:03, 4 February 2014 (EST)
:::Given that Obama plans to make electric rates "skyrocket,"[http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/09/here-come-obama%E2%80%99s-necessarily-skyrocketing-electricity-rates/] I assume the Volt will end up taking one for the team. As near as I can tell, the environmentalists oppose all forms of power production: nuclear, coal, gas, oil, hydropower, etc. With Obama flying in the world's least fuel efficient airplane and rolling in an eight-mile-a-gallon limo, a lot of peasants will have to do without for the result to be carbon neutral. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 00:59, 5 February 2014 (EST)
::::I’m sure every Pres. Obama basher has heard your skyrocket factoid. Of course what his critics never mention is the context. '''If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long-term -- because of a combination of more efficient energy uses and changing lightbulbs and more-efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy -- that the economy will benefit.''' <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-obama-promise-a-war-on-affordable-energy/2012/10/19/d1fa0156-1975-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_blog.html</ref> Cap and Trade used to be a huge Republican method of environmental change. Low sulfer coal, CFC gases, and unleaded gasoline were successful targets of cap and trade during Republican administrations. Even Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain were big supporters of cap and trade but now that Pres. Obama come out in favor using this mechanism to reduce CO2 the Republicans had turned tail and derided it as cap and tax. It seems if a Democrat is for it, like your current president, then they are against it. --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 19:23, 5 February 2014 (EST)
:::::Something-for-nothing is not the way economics works. Obama is an economic idiot. This is a man who once announced that he wanted a minimum wage of $100 a hour, for crying out loud. If he knew any less about economics, the country would be broke after repeated multi-trillion dollar bailout and pork packages. Oh, wait a minute, we are. FDR let the banks go belly up, and a historic recovery followed. That's the kind of president we need. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 03:11, 6 February 2014 (EST)
::::::@PeterKa, you wrote "This is a man who once announced that he wanted a minimum wage of $100 a hour, for crying out loud." All I could find in reference to a $100/hour minimum wage seems to be from conservative commentators using a slippery slope to oppose any form of minimum wage increase. Could you please tell me more information about this Obama announcement? Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 09:28, 6 February 2014 (EST)
:::::::What can I say? I watched Obama make the speech on CNN. When he proposed the $100 hour minimum wage, his audience cheered. I don't think he was actually president yet, or this speech would have been a bigger deal. This was around the time of the 2008 election. The $100 an hour minimum wage is an old Milton Friedman favorite, his way of illustrating the absurdity of wage regulation. So I was startled to hear Obama proposing it, and I checked the transcript just to make sure I didn't mishear or anything. In any case, the speech is not on the CNN site anymore. Perhaps it's still on the [http://web.archive.org/ Wayback Machine]. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 23:02, 6 February 2014 (EST)

==Coal==
Well nuts, looks like I can’t win. My last edit was removed because it was liberal propaganda, yet the sources Jpatt used are rather liberal also. I’m racked over the coals if I dare to mix in alleged liberal sources with conservative sources yet an administrator can do so with impunity. Of well, at least this article wasn’t the embarrassment it used to be. Only if that pesky item about coal could be altered then Jpatt’s edit would reflect reality since coal only generates 37% of America’s electricity. Coal is being phased out; renewable and other non-polluting sources of energy are becoming more wide spread. It would be nice if this article could spell this out.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 23:57, 15 February 2014 (EST)

==Reference==
{{reflist|1}}

Talk:Climate agenda

2014-02-16T04:41:17Z

NormaN:

Talk:Bob Jones University

2014-02-16T04:38:25Z

NormaN:

Before I write about it I want to bring this up. BJU does not allow jazz, country, rock or even contemporary Christian music[http://www.bju.edu/prospective/expect/rhall.html], isn't it interesting that they allow guns (albeit in a limited fashion)

''"All weapons must be turned in for storage. Trigger locks are required for pistols. Fireworks are not permitted on campus."''

Now, I'm not a gun-control advocate, but can't a gun hurt you more spiritually (not to mention physically) then Louis Armstrong or Johnny Cash? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:17, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: Though when you think about it, [[Klezmer]] is allowed ;) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 21:18, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Accreditation==

I'm new here and just wanted to know.... Would it be appropriate to specify that the college is accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, Accreditation Commission? [[User:DrCB|DrCB]] 23:18, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Racism ==

Andy, just because the Democrats ALSO supported slavery, racism and segregation of African-Americans, does not mean that you should delete facts from this article. BJU supported segregation long after the Democratic party had given it up, (in fact it wasn't until ''around 2000'' BJU lifted their ban on interracial dating, these are facts.)

If you feel that the Page on the Democratic party should mention the history of their attitude toward African-Americans, by all means add it. Removing valid and referenced information from this page simply because it makes a conservative institution look bad is ridiculous. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:33, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:Mr. Schlafly, could you please explain what is so wrong about these citations? We all know that they are accurate, and it doesn't make sense to remove them just because of ideological differences. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 18:07, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

== Abuse ==

Bob Jones University freely admits there are allegations of sexual abuse at their university. They freely admit to firing the organization they hired to investigate the allegations. Yet a short factual edit to the Conservapedia article concerning these allegations is removed to satisfy the whims of an administrator. Looks like people will have no choice but to get their information concerning this matter from the liberal press since at least one conservative on this encyclopedia is afraid to admit a conservative university may have an abuse problem. It would be nice if conservatives had their own resources to research concerning this allegation, but no, the truth must be suppressed within the conservative community. I’m sure Wikipedia has something about Bob Jones firing GRACE. Should conservatives go to the liberal alternative since this information is unavailable on Conservapedia? I won’t, but others will, you can count on that.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 12:48, 14 February 2014 (EST)

:This isn't Wikipedia, where some obscure allegation by the liberal media becomes a massive "controversy" section far out of proportion to anything proven. Sexual abuse is far worse at public schools, so that entry would be a better location for the issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:10, 14 February 2014 (EST)
Darn right this isn’t Wikipedia. I thought on Conservapedia article edits wouldn’t be deleted unless the matter was first discussed with the person making the edit in question. Guess I was wrong. My edit complied perfectly with the ‘rules’, yet you violated the rules written out at ''Conservapedia: How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia; rule 10 … Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules.'' Even BJU is acknowledging the story is becoming wide-spread. [[http://bjunews.com/2014/02/08/more-media-outlets-reporting-on-bjus-dismissal-of-g-r-a-c-e-here-are-links-to-every-article/]] The Christian and conservative media are questioning BYU’s reasoning behind their tactics. Yet you want to deny reality by claiming, without merit, this is an obscure allegation. Even more bizarre is your utterly unsupported assertion that sexual abuse is much worse at public schools. You are simply incredible.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 20:23, 14 February 2014 (EST)
::Three things here, Norman. First, you're going to present solid, factual evidence of the alleged abuse at BJU, including testimonials from the victims; you will not gather those sources from the mainstream liberal media (New York Times, Wash. Post, CNN, NBC, etc.), and you will not gather those sources whose authors have a bone to pick with Christianity and/or conservatism. Second, you're going to post them here without doing so in a hostile manner. Third, we have repeatedly published news reports against the public school system of sexual abuse against students by teachers, so your claim that it is an "unsupported assertion" is bizarre on your part. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:03, 15 February 2014 (EST)

:::1. Issuing orders I see, very well. Let me start with a statement from BJU admitting there are abused students attending their university. Given the current climate in our world and the steady stream of heart-breaking revelations of sexual abuse that have taken place in secular and Christian spheres, the Board of Trustees and administration of Bob Jones University have reviewed the University’s counseling practices and current policies that govern our responses to sexual abuse as we learn of it from the students and the constituency we serve. http://www.bju.edu/about/grace.php

:::Alleged BJU victims speak out.
:::Former BJU student Jeffrey Hoffman. http://www.wspa.com/story/24667188/former-bju-students-speak-out-on-canceled-sex-abuse-investigation
:::Erin Burchwell. http://www.wyff4.com/news/local-news/greenville-news/former-bju-student-claims-sex-abuse-was-hidden/24358248

:::Additional conservative sources concerning the alleged abuses and the firing of GRACE, all without a bone to pick.
:::[[http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/grace-abwe-sexual-abuse/]] [[http://www.bju.edu/news/2014-02-13-bju-grace-meet.php?utm_source=News-Events&utm_medium=RSS&utm_content=feed&utm_campaign=RSS-News]] [[http://netgrace.org/wp-content/uploads/Update-February-13th.pdf]] [[http://www.christianpost.com/news/bob-jones-university-abruptly-terminates-relationship-with-grace-led-by-billy-grahams-grandson-114176/]] [[http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/february/bob-jones-university-fires-grace-abuse-investigation-bju.html]] [[http://www.abpnews.com/ministry/organizations/item/28335-bob-jones-university-halts-abuse-probe#.UvbAwHlmlds]] [[http://sharperiron.org/comment/66003]][[http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2014/02/07/bob-jones-university-shuts-down-g-r-a-c-e-investigation/]] [[http://encountergospelnews.blogspot.com/2014/02/bob-jones-university-fires-grace-as-sex.html]] [[http://urbanchristiannews.com/ucn/2014/02/bob-jones-university-fires-grace-firm-responsible-for-sex-abuse-investigation.html#.UvgsFHlmldt]] [[http://www.blackchristiannews.com/2014/02/bob-jones-university-terminates-contract-with-firm-hired-to-investigate-sex-abuse-reports-1-month-before-findings-were-to-be-released/]] [[http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/why-is-bob-jones-university-so-nervous/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-is-bob-jones-university-so-nervous]] [[http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/24658107/bob-jones-ends-agreement-abuse-ombudsman ]] [[http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/20058800/bju-investigating-abuse-claims ]]

:::2. Where have I been hostile? I’m relentlessly following the rules. Now only if some of my critics would do the same. You know, lead by example.

:::3. I never claimed public school students weren’t subject to abuse. I would be a very stupid person if I were to deny such an obvious fact of life within the American public school system. Please stop misrepresenting my assertions. Schlafly said, ''“Sexual abuse is far worse at public schools, so that entry would be a better location for the issue”''. He did not provide a reference therefore I requested he support his assertion with evidence. I would like to see any evidence concerning the abuse rates between public schools and BJU. I looked but was unable to find anything. Hence my concern. Would you be so kind as to provide the news sources you claim Conservapedia has published concerning the comparative abuse rates between public schools and BJU? Thanks.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 23:38, 15 February 2014 (EST)

Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment

2014-02-16T04:30:27Z

Talk:Climate agenda

2014-02-14T16:03:44Z

NormaN:

Climate agenda

2014-02-14T04:56:02Z

NormaN: Further reading

'''Climate change''' is the new name used by [[liberal]]s for their [[global warming]] hoax, which they coined as it became obvious that there is no crisis in global warming.

Climate change occurs naturally, which scientists say has occurred in repeated cycles of cooling (see [[Ice Age]]s) and warming over millions of years. Yet many writers have been urging America to fund an ill-conceived initiative to "stop global warming", as if warmer nights or winters would make human life more difficult. The term "climate change" has largely replaced the term "global warming", in ideological discussions.

Ideologues insist that the world's top scientists have reached a "consensus" that most of the warming which land-based weather stations have recorded in the last century is due to human activity. The basis for this claim is a set of reports published by the [[IPCC]], an agency of the United Nations. The assumption is that the government-appointed representatives who run the IPCC would be completely objective and neutral, and would place finding and revealing the truth ahead of any nationalistic interests.

A lot of money is spent publicizing one side's position in the debate:
* "Newsweek purports to take readers inside the world of “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine” without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/15/the-hottest-year-1934/]

Journalists omit mention of key scientific points:

* Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/17/the-good-side-of-climate-change/]

Ideologues use all sorts of tricks to convince the general public to support them on the climate change issue. A perennial favorite is to trumpet the current year as the "[[warmest year on record]]", as if one [[outlier]] denotes a [[trend]]. Probably the most insidious kind of trick is to accuse objective people of cherry-picking and censorship, while hypocritically doing just that themselves.

The allegedly harmful effects of climate change include warming temperatures, changing weather patterns, an increase in sea level and in general any climate event affected by global warming.<ref>http://chaser.env.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~kengo/lec/IPCC_TAR-FRONT.pdf</ref> Climate change is one of the top [[Environmental Issues|environmental issues]], with [[liberal]]s and [[conservative]]s evenly divided on whether [[global warming]] is man-made or, if it is significantly occurring, is a natural event — along with [[global cooling]].

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the [[global warming debate]] about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[Climategate_media_coverage#Climategate_media_coverage|media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. <ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides</ref>

==Questions==
#What is the most important greenhouse gas?
#*AGW proponents say it's [[carbon dioxide]]
#*A peer-reviewed scientific paper says it's [[water vapor]]<ref>"Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas ..." [http://thejll.com/Frascati/ReichelThejllLassenSCL.pdf] </ref>
#What is the role of clouds?
#*Low-altitude clouds reflect some of the sun's radiation back into the atmosphere, cooling the earth. It's not yet known whether global warming will dissipate clouds, which would effectively speed up the process of climate change, or increase [[cloud cover]], which would slow it down. [http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912448,00.html#ixzz1EyuBDJo1]
#What are the uncertainties in understanding climatic change?
#*The UN's climate panel said recently there is '''a 90% chance''' that most of the last 50 to 100 years of global warming are due to human activity
#*[[Sallie Baliunas]] points out that the same climate panel also said, "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors" [http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/solar.html]

==Links==
*[[cloud cover]]
*[[ice age]]

==Hypocrisy==

Many times, AGW advocates pay lip service to general principles which they themselves violate, while broadcasting false accusations that their opponents are violating these principles. The AGW side has made every effort to censor their opponents, heaping enormous pressure on scientists and other academics to silence them. Accordingly, the US media gave great publicity to [[James Hansen]] when he accused NASA of trying to silence him.<ref>Hansen "shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change" [http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm] </ref>

==Environmentalism and climate change==
The main contention of [[environmentalist]]s like [[Al Gore]] is the argument that:
#The earth's atmosphere warmed one or two degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 Centigrade) during the 20th century.
#Most of this warming is man-made.
#The warming is likely to continue and to be harmful to human, animal and plant life.
#We must all work together to stop it by reducing emission of [[greenhouse gases]].

==Science and climate change==

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
<blockquote>... climate change remains a fascinating and important scientific subject. Climate dynamics and climate history are extraordinarily complex, and despite intensive study for decades, scientists are not yet able to explain satisfactorily such basic phenomena as extreme weather events ([[hurricane]]s, [[tornado]]es, [[drought]]s), El Nino variations, historical [[climate cycles]], and trends of [[atmospheric temperature]]s. The scientific uncertainties about all these matters are great, and not surprisingly, competent scientists disagree in their interpretations of what is and is not known.<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM</ref></blockquote>

William Happer wrote:
<blockquote>The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the [[medieval warm period]] at the time of the [[Viking]] settlements of [[Iceland]] and [[Greenland]] from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “[[little ice age]],” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by manmade changes in the concentration of [[carbon dioxide]] in the atmosphere.<ref>http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf</ref></blockquote>

One of the major problems with many scientists' conclusions about climate change is a misunderstanding of [[correlation]] versus [[causation]]. Some studies show correlations between increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and increasing [[precipitation]], and between human activity and atmospheric greenhouse gases, and then go so far as to conclude that humans are causing increased rain, snow, and catastrophic flooding.<ref>Gillis, Justin. "Study Links Rise in Rain and Snow to Human Actions." The New York Times, February 16, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/earth/17extreme.html?_r=2&ref=science</ref><ref>Schiermeier, Quirin. "Increased Flood Risk Linked to Global Warming." 2011. Nature, Vol. 470, p. 316. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html</ref> Correlation does not imply causation. This is especially true considering the relatively short periods of data used (a few decades at most) compared to the Earth's age, and the fact that weather patterns have been cyclic throughout history (see [[climate cycles]]).

==History of Climate Change vs. Global Warming==
The term climate change has its origins several decades ago when physicist Gilbert Plass published a study called ''The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'' in 1956. <ref>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract</ref>
In this study, Plass postulated the release of CO2 into the atmosphere by industrial and other human activities may have caused the temperature rise noticed in the twentieth century.

The term global warming was first thought to be used by Wallace Broecker, a geochemist from [[Columbia University]]'s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory. His paper, ''Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?'' <ref>http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf</ref> acknowledged the scenario of global warming, though there was a common acknowledgement that airborne aerosols may cause global cooling.

A National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate published in 1979 also used the term global warming to refer to surface temperature change. <ref>http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf</ref> Jule Charney of the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] in Cambridge declared: "If carbon dioxide continues to increase, we find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.” Climate change was still used to refer to the other changes thought to be caused by increased CO2.

==Further Reading==
* [http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/CCRG.pdf Climate Change Reference Guide]
* [http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatedirectory/en/index1.html Climate change: directory of references/resources]
* [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php National Climatic Data Center]
* [http://www.realclimate.org/ Real Climate]
* [http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ IPCC Fifth Assessment Report]

==See also==
*[[anthropogenic global warming]]

==Links==
*[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global warming: both sides]
*[http://www.no-carbon-tax.org Australian Anti-Climate Hypocrisy Site]

[[Category:Environmentalism]]

{{Climategate scandal}}
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Climate change]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Talk:Climate agenda

2014-02-14T04:44:15Z

NormaN: Created page with "The opening paragraph should be edited to reflect the actual history of climate change/global warming. References would also be nice.--~~~~"

The opening paragraph should be edited to reflect the actual history of climate change/global warming. References would also be nice.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 23:44, 13 February 2014 (EST)

Climate agenda

2014-02-14T04:41:02Z

NormaN: Links

'''Climate change''' is the new name used by [[liberal]]s for their [[global warming]] hoax, which they coined as it became obvious that there is no crisis in global warming.

Climate change occurs naturally, which scientists say has occurred in repeated cycles of cooling (see [[Ice Age]]s) and warming over millions of years. Yet many writers have been urging America to fund an ill-conceived initiative to "stop global warming", as if warmer nights or winters would make human life more difficult. The term "climate change" has largely replaced the term "global warming", in ideological discussions.

Ideologues insist that the world's top scientists have reached a "consensus" that most of the warming which land-based weather stations have recorded in the last century is due to human activity. The basis for this claim is a set of reports published by the [[IPCC]], an agency of the United Nations. The assumption is that the government-appointed representatives who run the IPCC would be completely objective and neutral, and would place finding and revealing the truth ahead of any nationalistic interests.

A lot of money is spent publicizing one side's position in the debate:
* "Newsweek purports to take readers inside the world of “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine” without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/15/the-hottest-year-1934/]

Journalists omit mention of key scientific points:

* Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/17/the-good-side-of-climate-change/]

Ideologues use all sorts of tricks to convince the general public to support them on the climate change issue. A perennial favorite is to trumpet the current year as the "[[warmest year on record]]", as if one [[outlier]] denotes a [[trend]]. Probably the most insidious kind of trick is to accuse objective people of cherry-picking and censorship, while hypocritically doing just that themselves.

The allegedly harmful effects of climate change include warming temperatures, changing weather patterns, an increase in sea level and in general any climate event affected by global warming.<ref>http://chaser.env.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~kengo/lec/IPCC_TAR-FRONT.pdf</ref> Climate change is one of the top [[Environmental Issues|environmental issues]], with [[liberal]]s and [[conservative]]s evenly divided on whether [[global warming]] is man-made or, if it is significantly occurring, is a natural event — along with [[global cooling]].

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the [[global warming debate]] about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[Climategate_media_coverage#Climategate_media_coverage|media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. <ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides</ref>

==Questions==
#What is the most important greenhouse gas?
#*AGW proponents say it's [[carbon dioxide]]
#*A peer-reviewed scientific paper says it's [[water vapor]]<ref>"Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas ..." [http://thejll.com/Frascati/ReichelThejllLassenSCL.pdf] </ref>
#What is the role of clouds?
#*Low-altitude clouds reflect some of the sun's radiation back into the atmosphere, cooling the earth. It's not yet known whether global warming will dissipate clouds, which would effectively speed up the process of climate change, or increase [[cloud cover]], which would slow it down. [http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912448,00.html#ixzz1EyuBDJo1]
#What are the uncertainties in understanding climatic change?
#*The UN's climate panel said recently there is '''a 90% chance''' that most of the last 50 to 100 years of global warming are due to human activity
#*[[Sallie Baliunas]] points out that the same climate panel also said, "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors" [http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/solar.html]

==Links==
*[[cloud cover]]
*[[ice age]]

==Hypocrisy==

Many times, AGW advocates pay lip service to general principles which they themselves violate, while broadcasting false accusations that their opponents are violating these principles. The AGW side has made every effort to censor their opponents, heaping enormous pressure on scientists and other academics to silence them. Accordingly, the US media gave great publicity to [[James Hansen]] when he accused NASA of trying to silence him.<ref>Hansen "shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change" [http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm] </ref>

==Environmentalism and climate change==
The main contention of [[environmentalist]]s like [[Al Gore]] is the argument that:
#The earth's atmosphere warmed one or two degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 Centigrade) during the 20th century.
#Most of this warming is man-made.
#The warming is likely to continue and to be harmful to human, animal and plant life.
#We must all work together to stop it by reducing emission of [[greenhouse gases]].

==Science and climate change==

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
<blockquote>... climate change remains a fascinating and important scientific subject. Climate dynamics and climate history are extraordinarily complex, and despite intensive study for decades, scientists are not yet able to explain satisfactorily such basic phenomena as extreme weather events ([[hurricane]]s, [[tornado]]es, [[drought]]s), El Nino variations, historical [[climate cycles]], and trends of [[atmospheric temperature]]s. The scientific uncertainties about all these matters are great, and not surprisingly, competent scientists disagree in their interpretations of what is and is not known.<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM</ref></blockquote>

William Happer wrote:
<blockquote>The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the [[medieval warm period]] at the time of the [[Viking]] settlements of [[Iceland]] and [[Greenland]] from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “[[little ice age]],” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by manmade changes in the concentration of [[carbon dioxide]] in the atmosphere.<ref>http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf</ref></blockquote>

One of the major problems with many scientists' conclusions about climate change is a misunderstanding of [[correlation]] versus [[causation]]. Some studies show correlations between increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and increasing [[precipitation]], and between human activity and atmospheric greenhouse gases, and then go so far as to conclude that humans are causing increased rain, snow, and catastrophic flooding.<ref>Gillis, Justin. "Study Links Rise in Rain and Snow to Human Actions." The New York Times, February 16, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/earth/17extreme.html?_r=2&ref=science</ref><ref>Schiermeier, Quirin. "Increased Flood Risk Linked to Global Warming." 2011. Nature, Vol. 470, p. 316. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html</ref> Correlation does not imply causation. This is especially true considering the relatively short periods of data used (a few decades at most) compared to the Earth's age, and the fact that weather patterns have been cyclic throughout history (see [[climate cycles]]).

==History of Climate Change vs. Global Warming==
The term climate change has its origins several decades ago when physicist Gilbert Plass published a study called ''The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'' in 1956. <ref>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract</ref>
In this study, Plass postulated the release of CO2 into the atmosphere by industrial and other human activities may have caused the temperature rise noticed in the twentieth century.

The term global warming was first thought to be used by Wallace Broecker, a geochemist from [[Columbia University]]'s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory. His paper, ''Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?'' <ref>http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf</ref> acknowledged the scenario of global warming, though there was a common acknowledgement that airborne aerosols may cause global cooling.

A National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate published in 1979 also used the term global warming to refer to surface temperature change. <ref>http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf</ref> Jule Charney of the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] in Cambridge declared: "If carbon dioxide continues to increase, we find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.” Climate change was still used to refer to the other changes thought to be caused by increased CO2.

==See also==
*[[anthropogenic global warming]]

==Links==
*[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global warming: both sides]
*[http://www.no-carbon-tax.org Australian Anti-Climate Hypocrisy Site]

[[Category:Environmentalism]]

{{Climategate scandal}}
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Climate change]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Climate agenda

2014-02-14T04:37:18Z

NormaN: History

'''Climate change''' is the new name used by [[liberal]]s for their [[global warming]] hoax, which they coined as it became obvious that there is no crisis in global warming.

Climate change occurs naturally, which scientists say has occurred in repeated cycles of cooling (see [[Ice Age]]s) and warming over millions of years. Yet many writers have been urging America to fund an ill-conceived initiative to "stop global warming", as if warmer nights or winters would make human life more difficult. The term "climate change" has largely replaced the term "global warming", in ideological discussions.

Ideologues insist that the world's top scientists have reached a "consensus" that most of the warming which land-based weather stations have recorded in the last century is due to human activity. The basis for this claim is a set of reports published by the [[IPCC]], an agency of the United Nations. The assumption is that the government-appointed representatives who run the IPCC would be completely objective and neutral, and would place finding and revealing the truth ahead of any nationalistic interests.

A lot of money is spent publicizing one side's position in the debate:
* "Newsweek purports to take readers inside the world of “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine” without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/15/the-hottest-year-1934/]

Journalists omit mention of key scientific points:

* Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/17/the-good-side-of-climate-change/]

Ideologues use all sorts of tricks to convince the general public to support them on the climate change issue. A perennial favorite is to trumpet the current year as the "[[warmest year on record]]", as if one [[outlier]] denotes a [[trend]]. Probably the most insidious kind of trick is to accuse objective people of cherry-picking and censorship, while hypocritically doing just that themselves.

The allegedly harmful effects of climate change include warming temperatures, changing weather patterns, an increase in sea level and in general any climate event affected by global warming.<ref>http://chaser.env.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~kengo/lec/IPCC_TAR-FRONT.pdf</ref> Climate change is one of the top [[Environmental Issues|environmental issues]], with [[liberal]]s and [[conservative]]s evenly divided on whether [[global warming]] is man-made or, if it is significantly occurring, is a natural event — along with [[global cooling]].

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the [[global warming debate]] about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[Climategate_media_coverage#Climategate_media_coverage|media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. <ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides</ref>

==Questions==
#What is the most important greenhouse gas?
#*AGW proponents say it's [[carbon dioxide]]
#*A peer-reviewed scientific paper says it's [[water vapor]]<ref>"Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas ..." [http://thejll.com/Frascati/ReichelThejllLassenSCL.pdf] </ref>
#What is the role of clouds?
#*Low-altitude clouds reflect some of the sun's radiation back into the atmosphere, cooling the earth. It's not yet known whether global warming will dissipate clouds, which would effectively speed up the process of climate change, or increase [[cloud cover]], which would slow it down. [http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912448,00.html#ixzz1EyuBDJo1]
#What are the uncertainties in understanding climatic change?
#*The UN's climate panel said recently there is '''a 90% chance''' that most of the last 50 to 100 years of global warming are due to human activity
#*[[Sallie Baliunas]] points out that the same climate panel also said, "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors" [http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/g_warming/solar.html]

==Links==
*[[cloud cover]]
*[[ice age]]

==Hypocrisy==

Many times, AGW advocates pay lip service to general principles which they themselves violate, while broadcasting false accusations that their opponents are violating these principles. The AGW side has made every effort to censor their opponents, heaping enormous pressure on scientists and other academics to silence them. Accordingly, the US media gave great publicity to [[James Hansen]] when he accused NASA of trying to silence him.<ref>Hansen "shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change" [http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm] </ref>

==Environmentalism and climate change==
The main contention of [[environmentalist]]s like [[Al Gore]] is the argument that:
#The earth's atmosphere warmed one or two degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 Centigrade) during the 20th century.
#Most of this warming is man-made.
#The warming is likely to continue and to be harmful to human, animal and plant life.
#We must all work together to stop it by reducing emission of [[greenhouse gases]].

==Science and climate change==

Jack M. Hollander wrote:
<blockquote>... climate change remains a fascinating and important scientific subject. Climate dynamics and climate history are extraordinarily complex, and despite intensive study for decades, scientists are not yet able to explain satisfactorily such basic phenomena as extreme weather events ([[hurricane]]s, [[tornado]]es, [[drought]]s), El Nino variations, historical [[climate cycles]], and trends of [[atmospheric temperature]]s. The scientific uncertainties about all these matters are great, and not surprisingly, competent scientists disagree in their interpretations of what is and is not known.<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM</ref></blockquote>

William Happer wrote:
<blockquote>The current debates about global climate change are complicated by our not understanding the physics of the sun or of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans well enough to dismiss them as major causes of climate change on the earth. Dramatic climate changes like the [[medieval warm period]] at the time of the [[Viking]] settlements of [[Iceland]] and [[Greenland]] from about a.d. 900 to 1250, and the subsequent “[[little ice age]],” from about 1250 to 1700, which led to extinction of the Greenland settlements, were certainly not caused by manmade changes in the concentration of [[carbon dioxide]] in the atmosphere.<ref>http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_27.pdf</ref></blockquote>

One of the major problems with many scientists' conclusions about climate change is a misunderstanding of [[correlation]] versus [[causation]]. Some studies show correlations between increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and increasing [[precipitation]], and between human activity and atmospheric greenhouse gases, and then go so far as to conclude that humans are causing increased rain, snow, and catastrophic flooding.<ref>Gillis, Justin. "Study Links Rise in Rain and Snow to Human Actions." The New York Times, February 16, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/earth/17extreme.html?_r=2&ref=science</ref><ref>Schiermeier, Quirin. "Increased Flood Risk Linked to Global Warming." 2011. Nature, Vol. 470, p. 316. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html</ref> Correlation does not imply causation. This is especially true considering the relatively short periods of data used (a few decades at most) compared to the Earth's age, and the fact that weather patterns have been cyclic throughout history (see [[climate cycles]]).

==History of Climate Change vs. Global Warming==
The term climate change has its origins several decades ago when physicist Gilbert Plass published a study called ''The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'' in 1956. <ref>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract</ref>
In this study, Plass postulated the release of CO2 into the atmosphere by industrial and other human activities may have caused the temperature rise noticed in the twentieth century.

The term global warming was first thought to be used by Wallace Broecker, a geochemist from Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory. His paper, ''Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?'' <ref>http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf</ref> acknowledged the scenario of global warming, though there was a common acknowledgement that airborne aerosols may cause global cooling.

A National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate published in 1979 also used the term global warming to refer to surface temperature change. <ref>http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf</ref> Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge declared: "If carbon dioxide continues to increase, we find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.” Climate change was still used to refer to the other changes thought to be caused by increased CO2.

==See also==
*[[anthropogenic global warming]]

==Links==
*[http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global warming: both sides]
*[http://www.no-carbon-tax.org Australian Anti-Climate Hypocrisy Site]

[[Category:Environmentalism]]

{{Climategate scandal}}
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Climate change]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

2014-02-02T04:12:18Z

NormaN:

Chevrolet Volt

2014-02-02T04:09:06Z

NormaN:

[[File:2012 Chevy Volt.jpg|right|250px]]
The '''Chevy Volt''' is a hybrid car produced by [[GM]]. Unlike the Prius it uses lithium-ion batteries and can run on only the electric motor for an extended period.<ref>"[http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/specs/trims.html 2014 Volt Models & Specs]"</ref> The 149 HP electric motor can propel the vehicle to 101 mph and after the 16 kWh battery is depleted the gasoline engine switches on to provide energy for the motor and can couple itself to the wheels directly when above 70 mph.<ref>"[http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1010_2011_chevrolet_volt_test/ First Test: 2011 Chevrolet Volt]", ''Motor Trend'', Dec. 2010.</ref> The Volt, like any automobile with a 16 kWh battery or larger, is eligible for a $7,500 tax rebate when purchased.<ref>http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Plug-In-Electric-Vehicle-Credit-(IRC-30-and-IRC-30D)</ref>

== Ownership Satisfaction==
Volt owners have the highest rate of owner satisfaction of any new car in 2011 and 2012. 93% of Volt owners would purchase the car again.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/01/survey-finds-chevrolet-volt-owners-most-satisfied/</ref><ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/1129/Chevy-Volt-tops-customer-satisfaction-survey-again</ref>

==Popularity==

From a list of the top best-selling vehicles sold during the 2012 model year, the Volt was ranked 133 out of 262.<ref>http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2012/09/august-2012-ytd-all-vehicle-rankings.html</ref>
GM says the Volt is a niche car but will serve as a technological test bed for future advanced technology.<ref>http://gm-volt.com/2014/01/17/what-is-gm-doing-about-automotive-electrification/</ref>.

While current owners appear most satisfied, the general public has little interest in electric vehicles.{{fact}} For environmentalists, electric automobiles appear to be the car of choice. In reality, it's not a game changer for the environment as liberals would have you believe. A reliance on electricity, commonly generated by coal power, does not offset the use of oil.{{fact}}

==Sales==
Volt sales started slow with only 326 sold in 2010. 2011 saw a modest increase in monthly sales with a yearly total of 7671. A rapid increase happened in 2012 with 23,461 sold though 2013 sales have leveled off at 23,094.
<ref>http://www.hybridcars.com/gm-sells-50000th-chevy-volt-in-october/</ref> <ref>http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/05/chevy-volt-sales-inch-nissan-leaf-sales-2013/</ref>

Sales were strongest in California, approximately 50% of all sales <ref>http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1082121_predicting-chevy-volt-sales-is-california-inventory-the-key</ref>

With weak sales, GM may never recoup the car's $1.2 billion development costs,<ref>"[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/10/Insight--GMs-Volt---The-ugly-math-of-low-sales--high-costs GM's losses up to $49,000 on each Volt]", Reuters, 10 Sep 2012.</ref> a claim GM vehemently denies. <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/gm-fights-report-chevy-volts-rolling-away-49-173205445.html</ref>

==Safety==
General Motors collaborated with the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Illinois Professional Firefighters’ Association (IFPA), National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to train first responders in handling the peculiarities of electric vehicle accidents. GM also created an emergency response guide for emergency professionals and public use.<ref>http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/08/gmfr-20100827.html</ref>

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded the Chevy Volt does not constitute a fire safety risk and is quoted as saying, ‘no discernible defect trend exists’ after investigating a battery compartment fire that started two weeks after a Volt was destroyed in a crash test. GM has responded further by modifying existing and future Volts to better withstand crashes in the future.
<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/business/us-finds-no-defect-in-volt.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=automobiles&adxnnlx=1365182169-63HN9ZydY/7fcl60xagalA</ref>

==Further reading==
* [http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1010_unbolting_the_chevy_volt_to_see_how_it_ticks/#ixzz2s5raBXj6 Unbolting the Chevy Volt to See How it Ticks]
* [http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/how-the-2011-chevrolet-volt-works.html How the 2011 Chevrolet Volt Works]
* [http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/ Chevrolet Volt Review ]
* [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/22/news/general-motors-sour-deal/ Roseann Salanitri, "General Motors'Sour Deal," ''Conservative News and Views'', 22 September 2012]

<references/>
[[Category: Cars]]

Talk:Chevrolet Volt

2014-02-01T18:19:20Z

NormaN:

Chevrolet Volt

2014-02-01T18:16:26Z

NormaN:

[[File:2012 Chevy Volt.jpg|right|250px]]
The '''Chevy Volt''' is a hybrid car produced by [[GM]]. Unlike the Prius it uses lithium-ion batteries and can run on only the electric motor for an extended period.<ref>"[http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/specs/trims.html 2014 Volt Models & Specs]"</ref> The 149 HP electric motor can propel the vehicle to 101 mph and after the 16 kWh battery is depleted the engine switches on to provide energy for the motor and can couple itself to the wheels directly when above 70 mph.<ref>"[http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1010_2011_chevrolet_volt_test/ First Test: 2011 Chevrolet Volt]", ''Motor Trend'', Dec. 2010.</ref> The Volt, like any automobile with a 16 kWh battery or larger, is eligible for a $7,500 tax rebate when purchased.<ref>http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Plug-In-Electric-Vehicle-Credit-(IRC-30-and-IRC-30D)</ref>

== Ownership Satisfaction==
Volt owners have the highest rate of owner satisfaction of any new car in 2011 and 2012. 93% of Volt owners would purchase the car again.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/01/survey-finds-chevrolet-volt-owners-most-satisfied/</ref><ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/1129/Chevy-Volt-tops-customer-satisfaction-survey-again</ref>

==Popularity==

From a list of the top best-selling vehicles sold during the 2012 model year, the Volt was ranked 133 out of 262.<ref>http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2012/09/august-2012-ytd-all-vehicle-rankings.html</ref>
GM says the Volt is a niche car but will serve as a technological test bed for future advanced technology.<ref>http://gm-volt.com/2014/01/17/what-is-gm-doing-about-automotive-electrification/</ref>.

==Sales==
Volt sales started slow with only 326 sold in 2010. 2011 saw a modest increase in monthly sales with a yearly total of 7671. A rapid increase happened in 2012 with 23,461 sold though 2013 sales have leveled off at 23,094.
<ref>http://www.hybridcars.com/gm-sells-50000th-chevy-volt-in-october/</ref> <ref>http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/05/chevy-volt-sales-inch-nissan-leaf-sales-2013/</ref>

Sales were strongest in California, approximately 50% of all sales <ref>http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1082121_predicting-chevy-volt-sales-is-california-inventory-the-key</ref>

With weak sales, GM may never recoup the car's $1.2 billion development costs,<ref>"[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/10/Insight--GMs-Volt---The-ugly-math-of-low-sales--high-costs GM's losses up to $49,000 on each Volt]", Reuters, 10 Sep 2012.</ref> a claim GM vehemently denies. <ref>http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/gm-fights-report-chevy-volts-rolling-away-49-173205445.html</ref>

==Safety==
General Motors collaborated with the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Illinois Professional Firefighters’ Association (IFPA), National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to train first responders in handling the peculiarities of electric vehicle accidents. GM also created an emergency response guide for emergency professionals and public use.<ref>http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/08/gmfr-20100827.html</ref>

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded the Chevy Volt does not constitute a fire safety risk and is quoted as saying, ‘no discernible defect trend exists’ after investigating a battery compartment fire that started two weeks after a Volt was destroyed in a crash test. GM has responded further by modifying existing and future Volts to better withstand crashes in the future.
<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/business/us-finds-no-defect-in-volt.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=automobiles&adxnnlx=1365182169-63HN9ZydY/7fcl60xagalA</ref>

==Further reading==
* [http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/1010_unbolting_the_chevy_volt_to_see_how_it_ticks/#ixzz2s5raBXj6 Unbolting the Chevy Volt to See How it Ticks]
* [http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/how-the-2011-chevrolet-volt-works.html How the 2011 Chevrolet Volt Works]
* [http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/ Chevrolet Volt Review ]
* [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/22/news/general-motors-sour-deal/ Roseann Salanitri, "General Motors'Sour Deal," ''Conservative News and Views'', 22 September 2012]

<references/>
[[Category: Cars]]

Chevrolet Volt

2014-02-01T18:03:18Z

2014-01-29T01:38:53Z

NormaN: Replaced first paragraph with factual information and acceptable sources.

The '''Chevy Volt''' is a hybrid car produced by [[GM]]. Unlike the Prius it uses lithium-ion batteries and can run on only the electric motor for an extended period. <ref>http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/specs/trims.html </ref> The 149 HP electric motor can propel the vehicle to 101 mph and after the 16 KWh battery is depleted the engine switches on to provide energy for the motor and can couple itself to the wheels directly when above 70 mph. <ref>http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1010_2011_chevrolet_volt_test/</ref>The Volt, like any automobile with a 16kWh battery or larger, is eligible for a $7500 tax rebate when purchased. <ref>http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Plug-In-Electric-Vehicle-Credit-(IRC-30-and-IRC-30D)</ref>

== Ownership Satisfaction==
Volt owners have the highest rate of owner satisfaction of any new car in 2011 and 2012. 93% of Volt owners would purchase the car again. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/01/survey-finds-chevrolet-volt-owners-most-satisfied/</ref> <ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/1129/Chevy-Volt-tops-customer-satisfaction-survey-again</ref>

==Popularity==

From a list of the top best-selling vehicles sold during the 2012 model year, the Volt was ranked 133 out of 262.
<ref>http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2012/09/august-2012-ytd-all-vehicle-rankings.html</ref>
GM says the Volt is a niche car but will serve as a technological test bed for future advanced technology. <ref>http://gm-volt.com/2014/01/17/what-is-gm-doing-about-automotive-electrification/</ref>.

==Safety==
General Motors collaborated with the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Illinois Professional Firefighters’ Association (IFPA), National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to train first responders in handling the peculiarities of electric vehicle accidents. GM also created an emergency response guide for emergency professionals and public use.
<ref>http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/08/gmfr-20100827.html</ref>

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded the Chevy Volt does not constitute a fire safety risk and is quoted as saying, ‘no discernible defect trend exists’ after investigating a battery compartment fire that started two weeks after a Volt was destroyed in a crash test. GM has responded further by modifying existing and future Volts to better withstand crashes in the future.
<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/business/us-finds-no-defect-in-volt.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=automobiles&adxnnlx=1365182169-63HN9ZydY/7fcl60xagalA</ref>

==Further reading==
* [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/22/news/general-motors-sour-deal/ Roseann Salanitri, "General Motors'Sour Deal," ''Conservative News and Views'', 22 September 2012]

<references/>
[[Category: Cars]]

Chevrolet Volt

2014-01-29T01:21:27Z

NormaN: Replaced opinion referenced by a blog to an official statement by GM.

The '''Chevy Volt''' is a [[hybrid car]] produced by [[GM]]. Unlike the Prius it uses lithium-ion batteries and can run on only the electric motor for an extended period. The tiny gas engine is not hooked up to the wheels and functions as a generator to charge the batteries. {{fact}} This is a highly inefficient system as there are losses in both the charging of the battery and in the electric motor which would not exist if the engine was connected to the wheels with a transmission and drive shafts. The government is subsidizing the purchase of the Volt, with each car reportedly costing GM $49,000 more than what they are selling them for.<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/10/Insight--GMs-Volt---The-ugly-math-of-low-sales--high-costs</ref> The Volt is a typical example of the Obama's administration's failed green energy investments.<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/</ref>

== Ownership Satisfaction==
Volt owners have the highest rate of owner satisfaction of any new car in 2011 and 2012. 93% of Volt owners would purchase the car again. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/12/01/survey-finds-chevrolet-volt-owners-most-satisfied/</ref> <ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2012/1129/Chevy-Volt-tops-customer-satisfaction-survey-again</ref>

==Popularity==

From a list of the top best-selling vehicles sold during the 2012 model year, the Volt was ranked 133 out of 262.
<ref>http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2012/09/august-2012-ytd-all-vehicle-rankings.html</ref>
GM says the Volt is a niche car but will serve as a technological test bed for future advanced technology. <ref>http://gm-volt.com/2014/01/17/what-is-gm-doing-about-automotive-electrification/</ref>.

==Safety==
General Motors collaborated with the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Illinois Professional Firefighters’ Association (IFPA), National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to train first responders in handling the peculiarities of electric vehicle accidents. GM also created an emergency response guide for emergency professionals and public use.
<ref>http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/08/gmfr-20100827.html</ref>

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded the Chevy Volt does not constitute a fire safety risk and is quoted as saying, ‘no discernible defect trend exists’ after investigating a battery compartment fire that started two weeks after a Volt was destroyed in a crash test. GM has responded further by modifying existing and future Volts to better withstand crashes in the future.
<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/business/us-finds-no-defect-in-volt.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=automobiles&adxnnlx=1365182169-63HN9ZydY/7fcl60xagalA</ref>

==Further reading==
* [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/22/news/general-motors-sour-deal/ Roseann Salanitri, "General Motors'Sour Deal," ''Conservative News and Views'', 22 September 2012]

<references/>
[[Category: Cars]]

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature

2014-01-09T02:26:25Z

NormaN:

Berkley Earth was created by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in 2010 when they addressed the five major concerns of climate change skeptics. The study released in 2012 addressed alleged biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect as well as an over reliance on climate modeling by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). <ref>http://www.berkeleyearth.org/about</ref>

==References==
<references/>

2013-06-21T02:49:03Z

NormaN:

'''HPV''' is short for the "human papillomavirus", which is a family of viruses that infect epithelial tissues such as the skin and mucosa. There are over 200 known strains of the virus, roughly 40 of which are known to be sexually transmitted. The sexually transmitted strains of the virus fall into two broad categories, "high risk" strains and "low risk" strains. Most infections, with any strain, are asymptomatic but infected persons may still be contagious until the infection clears--usually around two years post-infection.

Symptomatic infection with "low risk" sexually transmitted strains usually manifests as condylomata acuminata (genital warts), most commonly found on the vulva or the anus. Warts can also occur inside the vagina or (very rarely) inside the uterus in women. Men commonly develop warts within the urethra, however such cases are unlikely to be discovered unless the warts lead to sexual dysfunction or painful urination.

Chronic infection with "high risk" strains may lead to the development of cervical, anal, or penile cancer. Because these cancers take many years to develop (and can have many other causes), regular screening for cervical cancer is advisable even for women who consider themselves to be within a low risk population.

HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease. Population studies testing for the presence of antibodies against viral proteins suggest that around 75% of American women will be infected with at least one sexually transmitted strain of the virus at some point in their lives. These numbers are surprisingly consistent across all demographics examined.

==HPV Vaccine==
[[Merck]] has developed a [[vaccine]] against the four most prevalent sexually transmitted strains of HPV; see [[Gardasil]]. [[GlaxoSmithKline]] later released its own vaccine, Cervarix, which protects against the two most prevalent high risk strains. Both vaccines are manufactured using recombinant viral capsid proteins.

A new study looking at the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infections in girls and women before and after the introduction of the HPV vaccine shows a significant reduction in vaccine-type HPV in U.S. teens. The study, published in [the June issue of] The Journal of Infectious Diseases reveals that since the vaccine was introduced in 2006, vaccine-type HPV prevalence decreased 56 percent among female teenagers 14-19 years of age. <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0619-hpv-vaccinations.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2587113/?tool=pmcentrez

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925431/?tool=pmcentrez

[[category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Cancer]]