Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-03-17T01:57:38Z

Romney4king: /* Figured you'd find this interesting */

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]

== Additional criticism just added concerning "Anglophilia" ==

Having read the Henry Liddell article, I fail to see the Anglophilia in this case. For example, noting the degree type isn't any different than noting what sort of degree the person got in the American system. Am I missing something here? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:12, 11 February 2007 (EST)

The term "double first degree" is meaningless to most Wikipedia readers. Only an Anglophile knows or care what that means. And did you see all the obscure titles of royality in that entry??? That entry is 95% Anglophile trivia and only 5% content.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 11 February 2007 (EST)

: Ok, first of all, I agree that many readers(not sure "most", since the term is used in many English speaking countries such as India) would not know what "double first degree" is. That's why its wikilinked. So you can click on it to learn what it is. The assertion that "only an Anglophile" would "care" what the term means is hard for me to credit. Are you asserting that one must be an anglophile to care what degrees someone has? As to the last point, "obscure titles of royality" (I will presume you meant, "royalty" although I think you actually mean peerage or the more general British honours system) I'm not deeply familiar with the rules for how to describe people per the Wikipedia manual of style for titles, but my minimal knowledge makes most of the article seem to follow the basic rule although some of them do not. I am going to go through and remove the titles that should obviously not be present under the Wikipedia style guidelines. I fail to see how an article which is about a member of a prominent 19th century British family (and thus, has many relevant titles) demonstrates anglophila by mentioning those titles. Furthermore, given the fact that the Manual of Style says that some of those titles should not be present, it is hard to see how it demonstrates a bias on Wikipedia that an article would not correspond to the manual of style (if anything, that just goes more to the general inconsistency of Wikipedia). It isn't clear to me what you mean by "Anglophile trivia" and therefore cannot respond to it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:02, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: I looked at the "wikilinked" explanation for "double first degree." That link sent me to a massive explanation of the British educational system! I tried to find an explanation for "double first degree" but was unsuccessful. Apparently the term can have multiple meanings, none of which are particularly significant. So what if Henry Liddell was in the top ten percent of his college class??? Many entries about Englishmen on Wikipedia are stuffed with this silly information, as though we're all Anglophiles who worship this stuff. This junk obscures the real contributions of the subjects of the entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:21, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think it matters, Wikipedia has alot of stuff that most people don't care about. I think that your claim of "anglophilia" is hard to prove. I think that the problem is that Wikipidia is so big that it is getting impossible for anyone to keep it under control, so that people can add their own favorite facts, and there is so much of it that it cannot be stopped. it isn't bias just too much information. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 00:29, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: It is bias towards a particular type of information. We don't have too much information about English socialism, racism, imperialism, religious persecution, etc. We don't have too much information about Irish complaints about England, or complaints by other people. We '''do''' have too much information about obscure English royal titles and nearly arbitrary college distinctions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:36, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia doesn't have "anglophilia." What Wikipedia has a very significant proportion of British contributors. Who, incidentally, are constantly pointing out valid problems with "U.S.-centric" entries.

: '''REPLY''' The contributions by English editors is fine; the obsession of some of them with obscure British royalty and silly, unexplained college distinctions does reflect an Anglophile bias worth highlighting. Is there more editing on Wikipedia by English editors than American ones? Seems like it based on my observation of so many British spellings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

en.wikipedia.org is the English-''language'' Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia.

(And I'd add that 99% of people looking up Henry Liddell are probably researching Lewis Carroll, whose fictional and nonfictional work is so liberally laced with Victorian British terms, assumptions, mindset, point-of-view, etc. that it's probably not a bad idea for anyone reading him, or reading about him to be open to picking up little bits of Victorian trivia....) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 12 February 2007 (EST)

: '''REPLY''': It's hard to see the Alice connection on Liddell's (biased) entry on Wikipedia, so many of the 99% of users could be disappointed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: Ok, once again, this was something that could be easily fixed. However, I don't see what the grammatical issue is. I would appreciate if you would point it out to me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:58, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: Isolated bias is easily fixed, but pervasive bias is not. The Wikipedia contributors care more about an obscure royal lineage than presenting facts (and good grammar) in a clear manner. Do you know what percentage of Wikipedia administrators are English, and what their perspective is?

::: The grammar error is easy to fix, but the bias is not. "Henry George Liddell (February 6, 1811 – January 18, 1898) was Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford [WHEN????], headmaster (1846–55) of Westminster School[1] author of A History of Rome (1857); and co-author (with Robert Scott) of the monumental work A Greek-English Lexicon ((1843; 8th ed., 1897; revised by H.S. Jones and others, 1940; abridged, 1957; intermediate, 1959 [ABSURD LIST OF DETAIL THERE)[2], which is still use ["USED", NOT "USE"] by students of Greek."

::: Please give credit to Conservapedia when correcting the series of errors in Wikipedia. Thank you! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: Instead of claiming these simple errors as bias, why don't you just fix them when you find them. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:04, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::: It would take me all year, and then some, to "fix" the bias in Wikipedia. I'm simply giving examples here. Fixing an example does not fix the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 12 February 2007 (EST)
:::: I am not saying to fix all of the bias, I am saying you should fix the simple grammatical errors, and things like the lack of a date when you come across them.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 21:05, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::In order to jump-start Wikipedia, many articles, particularly on older topics, were directly copied from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Most of them are tagged "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." They're included in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_the_1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica this category]. For example, the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahab Ahab]. Most of these don't just "incorporate" text, they've just plain "copied" it. Compare [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ahab Ahab] in the online 1911 Britannica, for example.

:::::I wonder how many of the "Anglophilic" articles you've noticed are, in fact, 1911 Britannica material?

:::::Henry Liddell is '''not''' one of these. However, the 1911 Britannica does contain the exact sentence "Gaining a double first in 1833, Liddell became a college tutor, and was ordained in 1838." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:29, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: Yeah, this is a good point. There was a project at one point to clean up all these articles but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. One occasionally runs into very out of date things, like I recently ran into an article that referred to "mohammeedans" and one runs into similar problems. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:36, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:::::P. S. I can't resist pointing out... Aschlafly complains that "gossip and hundreds of thousands of entries about pop songs or celebrities are pervasive on Wikipedia." However, articles such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikachu Pikachu] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Timberlake Justin Timberlake] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King The Lion King] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffyverse Buffyverse] are ''virtually free'' of Anglophilia or British spellings. So, either pop culture is pervasive on Wikipedia, or Anglophilia is pervasive on Wikipedia, but I don't see how both can be. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:41, 12 February 2007 (EST)

I lost this conversation the moment it started. I think we went a lil too far, dont you Mr.Schlafly? I guess it doesnt matter what i think anyway.:) [[Will N.]]

: '''REPLY:''' You make a good point, Will. It does matter what you think. However, note that we all learned something from this debate: Wikipedia has copied material verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I didn't know that before this discussion. That explains some of the obscure and pecularly English descriptions in many entries. Also, it shows that Wikipedia is not completely original.

: By the way, Dpbsmith, with all due respect I do think that conflicting attributes can be pervasive at the same time. Oil and water are opposites in many ways, but both can be pervasive in the same solution. E.g., [[Exxon Valdez]] oil spill. You wouldn't say that either water or oil was pervasive there, but not both, would you? :-)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::Indeed. And in mayonnaise, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I just went on Wikipedia and clicked on random article about 35-40 times, and did not find any examples of "anglophilia"--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:21, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: Um, I don't think Wikipedia ever claimed to be "completely original." Wikipedia incorporates a lot of material that is in the public domain (either by release or by expiration) as well as material under the GFDL and many of the creative commons liscences. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:26, 12 February 2007 (EST)

::: There's an important point here, though. A lot of our "answers" to Aschlafly take the form "but everyone ought to know thus-and-such" about Wikipedia. Aschlafly often seems to me to berate Wikipedia quite unfairly for not matching his expectations of what he ''assumes'' Wikipedia is or thinks Wikipedia ought to be.

::: The question is, what does the average reader or user, who does not contribute, has not read the policy pages, doesn't have pages on a watchlist and understand how editing works, doesn't fix casual vandalism, doesn't glance at the History, etc. etc. think Wikipedia is?

::: Is Wikipedia ''in effect'' misrepresenting itself? Is there a ''large'' discrepancy between what [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] and I and even a casual contributor know Wikipedia to be and what the average reader assumes it to be? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== "Debate" about reliability and disclosure ==

I don't know what is meant by [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&curid=2896&diff=13761&oldid=13689]. I don't think Wikipedia ever hid this and if you read almost anything put out by Wikipedia discussing its early history it mentions it. This seems to imply that people were trying to cover it up or something. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:23, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:Where is this disclosed by Wikipedia? I've followed and contributed occasionally to Wikipedia for a decade and was unaware of such copying. In the much-publicized debate between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in late 2005, no one at Wikipedia acknowledged that it copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

:What's lawful (copying from expired copyrighted material) does not excuse lack of attribution or credit. Wikipedia should have a strict policy of requiring attribution. Does it? Apparently not. It should.

:This relates to several points about bias as Wikipedia often denies credit to Christianity also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:17, 12 February 2007 (EST)

:: You appear to be conflating a variety of different issues. First, this is disclosed anywhere, including for example on almost every article that is primarily based on the 1911 (they say at the bottom that they use it), as well as discussed at a variety of other locations such [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:1911 here]. So all relevant attribution is given. As to your claim that "In the much-publicized debate between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in late 2005, no one at Wikipedia acknowledged that it copied from the Encyclopedia Britannica" first there was no such debate as far as Wikipedia was concerned. Although Britannica spent a fair bit of time attacking the Nature study and has continued to spend time and effort attacking Wikipedia, James Wales has repeatedly stated that Wikipedia is not attempting to compare itself to Britannica nor supplant it. Given that there was no "debate" and that Wikipedia had used public domain work from a variety of early encyclopedias in a very small fraction of its articles which were marked as such, it is hard for me to see what else you wanted Wikipedia to do? You might have come claim about issues of intellectual honesty if Wikipeda were attempting to "debate" the relative merits, but again, Wikipedia was not attempting to do so and always stated that it was about using and sharing free encyclopedia content. (Incidentally, the 1911 edition also has nothing to do with the modern versions of Britannica since subsequent editions (I believe one of the ones from the mid 1960s) were complete or nearly complete rewrites, so any notion that Wikipedia was somehow copying from Encyclopedia Britannica as it stands now is inaccurate (irrelevant, but still inaccurate)). Now to your final comment, that this somehow "elates to several points about bias as Wikipedia often denies credit to Christianity" - I'm afraid I don't see the connection at all. One is a claimed bias that Wikipedia doesn't acknowledge the contributions of Christianity to Western culture and such, the other is a claim that that Wikipedia has not sufficiently acknowledged what sources it uses. What one has to do with the other is beyond me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:42, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::*The articles copied from the 1911 Britannica are supposed to be attributed, and as far as I know most of them are. The Henry Liddell article was not copied from the 1911 Britannica, although I must say it ''looks'' to my eye as if it has been lifted piecemeal from more than one source and not attributed.
::*Checking Wikipedia for details (!), the 1974 Britannica 3 (Propaedia/Micropaedia/Macropaedia) was a complete rewrite. As recently as the 1960s there were still some articles entirely or partly based on the 1911 edition. The one that sticks in my mind was their article on Beethoven, which contained the lovely sentence "The immense changes he brought about in the range of music have their most obvious effect in the possibilities of emotional expression; and so any outbreak of vulgarity or sentimentality can with impunity claim descent from Beethoven, though its ancestry may be no higher than Meyerbeer."
::*Copying without attribution is a perpetual problem in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," and cutting and pasting particularly from websites occurs all the time. Like casual vandalism, I believe most (but not all!) of it is caught and removed pretty quickly. It is made as clear as possible to contributors that they're not supposed to do this. Copyright violations are watched for ''pretty'' carefully, and enforced ''quite'' vigorously. A "copyvio" is one of the few forms of material on Wikipedia on which an admin is supposed to shoot first and ask questions afterwords; i.e. delete as soon as noticed, and restore afterwards in those vary rare cases where the contributor proves there actually was permission to release the material under the GFDL. (A much more common case occurs when someone thinks that Wikipedia copied something from another website, but on examination it turns out that the other website copied from Wikipedia without attribution!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 13 February 2007 (EST)
::*Which is not to say there are not problems with saying something is "policy" when there is no command-and-control chain of responsibility! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:18, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::: All your comments above are well-taken. I do see now that many thousands of pages on Wikipedia are copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica '''with''' attribution. That's a revelation to me.

::: That said, I still find an unsettling lack of attribution in Wikipedia's policy. Is there a policy that requires attribution to sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica? The Wikipedia supporters who claimed that Wikipedia is as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Nature study debate (including those who did the study) should have acknowledged the copying. I'm not blaming Jimmy Wales, but Wikipedia is no more synonymous with Jimmy Wales at this point than the U.S. Constitution is synonymous with George Washington.

::: The sentence in Henry Liddell's entry was obviously copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Does that violate any Wikipedia policy? It should. I'm going to ensure that Conservapedia's policy requires this.

::: Note that B.C./A.D. v. [[CE]] debate is about proper attribution also, and Wikipedia policy fails there also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::: I'm not aware of any specific policy stating that public domain works should be acknowledged but in practice they generally are acknowledged. As to your claim that "The Wikipedia supporters who claimed that Wikipedia is as good as the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Nature study debate (including those who did the study) should have acknowledged the copying" - this is not in any way a fault of Wikipedia but a fault of the researchers in question if it is a fault at all. Furthermore, since the Nature study looked at a specific subset of Wikipedia articles none of which contained 1911 material, I don't see why discussing that matter would be at all relevant. As to the BC/AD v. CE/BCE matter, I still don't see the connection. One is an issue of where a system came from, the other is where Wikipedia sources came from. You seem to be confusing content and meta-content issues. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:38, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::I'm not sure anyone understands how Wikipedia functions. In a broad sort of way, Wikipedia policy ''and practice'' is strongly opposed to copyright violation. This is expressed by a conspicuous warning "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted," by the reality that sysops and experienced users really do watch for suspicious material, and really do take quick and effective action when it is spotted.

::::''On the other hand,'' this only applies to material that is under copyright. As an offshoot of the Open Source movement, Wikipedia tends to ''favor'' re-use (copying!) of material that is not under copyright, and, conversely, welcomes the re-use of Wikipedia material by others. That's what the GFDL is all about.

::::Is everyone here aware that it would be ''perfectly OK'' as far as Wikipedia is concerned to copy a Wikipedia article into Conservapedia... either exactly as is, or edited so as to season it to conservative Christian taste... as long as you follow [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content these rules.] (Which include giving notice that others may re-use the content copied from Wikipedia). (I'm ''not'' suggesting Conservapedia do this).

::::With regard to attribution, this is covered by Wikipedia's policy on citing sources.

::::'''But...''' what does it mean for something to be "policy" on Wikipedia? This is one of these words that probably means something different to Wikipedians than to the world at large.

::::Wikipedia has enormous numbers of contributors. Contributions are ''not'' vetted or preapproved. It's all "ready, fire, aim." Wikipedia tries to ''influence'' contributors, but it relies on the good intentions of the majority of contributors. And there are nowhere near enough administrators to "enforce" policy. Even if the people with admin privileges all agreed on how to interpret policy, which they definitely do not.

::::And, don't forget--policy pages are just like any other Wikipedia page, and you or anyone else can go in and edit them at any time! Furthermore, it is acknowledged that policy pages are more of an attempt to report or articulate what experienced Wikipedians actually do than to control what they, or anybody else, does.

::::Now, anyone who's ever been in a large organization knows that the written policy often bears only a loose relationship to what actually happens. It may be that Wikipedia is not all ''that'' different from the other large organizations, but the paradoxes and complexities of large-scale human interaction are explicitly on display.

::::Aschlafly, I trust that '''didn't''' answer your question! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:37, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: Thanks, Dpbsmith, for your informative posting. Given all that you said, I guess it comes down to this: the personal views and preferences of the Wikipedia admins. There is no attempt by Wikipedia for balance in ideology or outlook by these admins. As a result, it is inevitable that certain philosophies will gain control and the place becomes dominated by certain views. This happens in any group environment, or any organization, if there is no attempt to stop it (e.g., U.S. Constitution). Is there a way to poll the views of Wikipedia admins? As I've said before, it's pretty clear what their views are simply by watching what they post and delete. But perhaps a poll would end any pretense that the Wikipedia admins are balanced as a group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: That's interesting because that doesn't sound at all like what Dpb said above. Now to be clear, if an admin pushes a certain viewpoint or acts in a matter biased towards one group other admins will step in. Since not everyone cares about the same issues, one will always have some completely uninvolved admins and other editors able to help out with neutrality issues. If admins act in a particularly POV way then they will get desysopped or put on some sort of probation. This has happened to admins in the past over a variety of issues. And again, the admins aren't in charge of content, that's a general editorial thing. All admins do is block problematic users, delete when there is a consensus to delete and protect when there is a strong need to protect. None of these concern direct content issues and admins are specifically disallowed from using their admin tools in content disputes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:24, 13 February 2007 (EST)

==Wikipedia on AAPS==
I'm not sure how much water I want to carry for Conservapedia, and I certainly don't want to be Conservapedia's pet Wikipedia-fixer, so I've left a note on Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Neutrality_issues.3F discussion page for the AAPS article] but have not edited the article itself. It might be appropriate to place a <nowiki>{{npov}}</nowiki> tag on the article itself, but I don't want to go that far yet, at least not until I see whether there's any response on the Talk page. (I expect to be chided for not fixing the article myself...)

It looks to me like the article is on balance negative toward AAPS, but that most of the comments and criticism are properly sourced.

The usual best approach to adjusting balance problems in Wikipedia articles is not to remove material on the overrepresented side if it's well-sourced, but to add well-sourced material on the opposing side, e.g. the fact that AAPS is (according to the New York Times) drawn from AMA membership and that (at least one) AAPS member has been the president of the AMA... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:21, 13 February 2007 (EST)

: Your edit to the Example of bias here is an improvement. However, I think your comment that the Wikipedia article is merely "on balance negative towards AAPS" is quite a bit understated. (Disclosure: I do work for AAPS.)

: The bulk of the entry about AAPS itself (not including its journal) is a rant by a British television journalist. Why isn't that high degree of bias prohibited, and why shouldn't the contributor be warned about a violation of a policy? --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:: High degrees of bias are prohibited by the neutrality policy. However, the policy is not exercised instantaneously or with much precision. That paragraph strikes me as the Wikipedian equivalent of driving 80 mph on a interstate highway posted 65. It's against the law but it would be naive to expect to see flashing blue and red lights behind you the instant the needle crosses 65. Thousands of drivers can ''habitually'' rive 80 for ''long'' periods of time without seeing them.

:: P. S. I see the article as slightly biased, you see it as very biased... no surprises there. Disclosure: I have nothing whatsoever to do with the AAPS! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:43, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:: P. P. S. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], in response to the note I left on the Talk page, one editor who's been active on this page recently cut the Brian Deer material down to about half its previous size and moved it into the section on "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons." I don't expect you to be satisfied, but I think you'll agree that it's better than it was. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the article]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:14, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::: I'm at least not happy with it still. DPB, where did the NYT mention that a member had been a past president of the AMA? That would seem to be a pretty relevant detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:18, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::: The shift is a slight improvement. But why are Brian Deer's intemperate comments even on AAPS's entry? How long do you think a similar rant against Brian Deer, if posted on his entry, would survive Wikipedia admin review? There is no justification for posting Brian Deer's rant on AAPS's entry. Note, by the way, that Brian Deer went off the deep end in response to criticism in England by someone other than AAPS of Brian Deer's own work, but that was not included.

:::: Also note that the date "2005" for Time's description about AAPS is wrong, and off by nearly 40 years. The Time remark is from 1967, when Time might have described Ronald Reagan the same way. Oh what a difference 40 years makes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::: I've corrected the date to 1967. As discussed on the talk page for that article, Deer is an award winning journalist specializing in medical issues. Therefore, it is reasonable to include his opinion. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:48, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: Citing something that is 40 years old to describe an active organization is silly at best, and obviously biased in this case. Time is editorializing rather than presenting something factual, and it's 40 years out of date. This is rank prejudice.

:::::: Allowing Deer's baseless opinion is even sillier and more biased. He has no personal knowledge of AAPS and cites no basis for his polemic, which was prompted by someone else's (not AAPS's) criticism of Deer's own work. Deer, an English journalist, has no expertise for commenting on an American organization anyway. Allowing Deer's diatribe to remain violates the NPOV that Wikipedia apparently only applies to censor conservative comments, not liberal ones.

:::::: As long as Deer's rant remains, this beautifully illustrates Wikipedia's bias. I'm moving this illustration up higher in the list here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 13 February 2007 (EST)

::::::: I'm going to disagree in part and agree in part. I agree that there may be a problem having a 40 year old comment in (although whether the piece is an editorial doesn't alter much whether or not it is relevant). The Deer assertion however seems to lack a strong basis- it isn't clear to me why an English journalist cannot comment on an American organization (it isn't like this is the 1700s and someone in Britain has almost no access to details about what is happening to organizations in the US) and regardless of what prompted the matter Deer is a qualified journalist in the relevant field. Citing a qualified journalist in the relevant field who gives his opinion does not seem biased to me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:05, 13 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::: OK, you've made yourself clear and I've updated the content page accordingly. I feel this ranks #3 in illustrating bias on Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== Bell Trade act ==

First note that the article has a neutrality disputed tag on top, so neutrality problems are a) not surprising b) don't reflect that poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. Also note that the quote about father capitalism was "wrath of Father Capitalism and Mother Nature" which is hard to see as actually anti-capitalist. It appears to be more of an attempt by a poor writer trying to use flowerly language to say that their were both economic and environmental problems. Also note that that phrase was in any event removed a while ago. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:10, 13 February 2007 (EST)

== Robert McHenry ==
...is quoted in point 23 as saying:
:One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined.

Well, yes. And that is why, at least since 2003 and I believe '''well''' before that, WIkipedia has had a policy page, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT What Wikipedia is not], saying:
:Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.
So McHenry's remark is beside the point, and doesn't illustrate much except that McHenry doesn't [[grok]] Wikipedia in fullness. Was this the same essay in which he likened Wikipedia to a public toilet?

[http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html No, it was a different one]:
:The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.
I like that remark better. At least it's funny. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:53, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::That is a funny remark. But Wikipedia does claim to be an "encyclopedia", and it does operate with any guiding principles that check and minimize the problems with democracy (e.g., U.S. Constitution). Page deletions (such as conservapedia) are done without any explanation other than (perhaps) majority vote. McHenry's observation fits Wikipedia to the tee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 18 February 2007 (EST)

The deletion of the page on conservapedia was not unexplained; the article was clearly against wikipedia's notability standards. You can complain that they selectivly enforce these standards (they do) but you cannot say that there were no legitimate grounds to delete the article. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:24, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY:''' Not true. The admin who deleted the conservapedia entry on Wikipedia did NOT explain his action. Some said it was because most (not all) of the comments favored deletion. But then defenders of Wikipedia claim it is not majority-rule. So which is it? Majority rule or reasoned basis for actions? For it to be a reasoned basis for action, the reason must be given by the person taking the action.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

== "Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors?" ==

Rising to the bait as usual... reaching for the rope for which to hang myself... since Aschlafly keeps asking, I'm going to guess at an answer.

Wikipedia doesn't survey these editors because I don't know, and I doubt anyone else does, ''how'' you would survey these editors. Aschlafly seems to labor under the impression that Wikipedia is like most traditional organizations, with reasonably well-structured organization charts and chains of command and so forth. It isn't.

Aschlafly or Jimbo or anyone else could ''ask'' editors to respond to a survey. There _is_ a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits List of Wikipedians by number of edits] that would enable anyone to identify the high-volume editors. One could go down that list and leave notes on all of their Talk pages asking them to fill in a survey. But what then? There's no way to compel them to answer. There's certainly no way to compel them to answer truthfully. Not as thing stand. (I can only imagine what would happen if Jimbo decreed that anyone not answering the survey would be blocked).

And Wikipedians tend to be rather antiauthoritarian and resistant to such requests. I don't know what the usual response rate is to online survey requests but I'll bet it would be about 0.2%. Make that 1% if it were clearly a personal, sincere request from Jimbo himself.

I'm afraid that the composition of WIkipedia's active editors must be guesswork based on observation of actual behavior.

One of the few factoids I am aware of is [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_age List of WIkimedians by age]. A tiny voluntary sampling. Is it representative? Who knows? But it looks like a young crowd to me.

There ''is'' a category [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with 202 members and a category [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians] with 68 members. Make of it what you will. (And I'm sure you will!) (And that includes Will N!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:06, 18 February 2007 (EST)

P. S. What do we know about the political composition of Encyclopaedia Britannica editors? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 18 February 2007 (EST)

== Mathematics ==

I do not understand point 16 in the list, about mathematics (I am a mathematician). I am all in favor of having an unbiased encyclopedia, but what does this entry have to do with being anti-American or anti-Christian? Wikipedia does not have an entry on elementary proofs, but it does have an entry on "Proof". It is not a mathematical textbook, so you cannot expect all proofs to be completely written out, I think.

:If no one objects, I will remove this point. --[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 02:57, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''REPLY:''' Unfortunately, "reverts" do not seem to have a comment section for explanations. I'm sorry for not seeing your comments here until last night, when I attempted to respond immediately. (By the way, I also have something of a mathematical background)

::: The concept of "elementary proof" was important for most of the 20th century. A Fields medal was given for an elementary proof; Paul Erdos swore by this approach; Math World recognizes it; and mathematicians who emphasize rigor appreciate the concept also. Why pretend it doesn't exist? It certainly does. Complex analysis has some inherent assumptions, and the concept of "elementary proof" recognizes as much. Why pretend otherwise?

::: Wikipedia (unlike Math World) refuses to recognize the concept of "elementary proof," and Wikipedia even omits any reference to the concept in its long-winded treatment of "proof" that you cite above. This reflects bias. Math may be less vulnerable to bias than other fields, but no field is completely immune from bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I agree that elementary proof is a very important concept. However, I think that this does not so much show bias as just the fact that Wikipedia is incomplete: probably nobody thought about adding an entry for this concept. BTW, I just noticed that Wikipedia does have an entry for Elementary proof now (since February 5), it was no doubt created as a result of this list. I updated the list accordingly.

I would be interested to see your reply to my other point, about Wikipedia not being a textbook. Do you intend to have only formal and rigorous proofs in Conservapedia?

::'''REPLY:''' The new entry in Wikipedia topic looks good, and must have been in response to the criticism here. Thanks for updating the entry here to reflect that.

:: That said, this was no oversight. Some mathematicians do falsely pretend there is no such thing as an "elementary proof," and some liberal blogs have ridiculed me for claiming otherwise. Rigor is vulnerable to bias, and this is an issue concerning rigor.

:: I wouldn't require only elementary proofs, but it essential to be aware of the concept and departures from elementary proofs. Denial of this important concept is worth criticizing, as we did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

This is very interesting, I never heard about mathematicians who denied the existence of elementary proofs. Could you give me some examples/quotes? Seems like a very strange position to have.--[[User:Twoflower|Twoflower]] 14:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Andrew, I think you exxagerate. Elementary proofs are only important in number theory, and only then mainly for aesthetic or philosophical reasons. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:: Thank you, Joshua, for denying or downplaying the significance of the elementary proofs in response to Twoflower's statement.

:: Yes, of course there are mathematicians today who deny significance to the concept of the elementary proof. The mathematicians who have inserted thousands of entries in Wikipedia for ten years without ever mentioning elementary proof, either as its own entry or as part of a comprehensive entry on proofs, further illustrate my point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::: Um, speaking as someone who has published papers in number theory where the notion of elementary proof first came to be somewhat relevant- should Wikipedia have had an article about it? Yes. Is it such a terrible thing to not have one? Not really. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:39, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK, that's the opinion of JoshuaZ, and that confirms my statement that some mathematicians downplay or deny the significance of the elementary proof. Needless to say, other mathematicians haven't agreed. A Fields medal was even given for an elementary proof once. Some mathematicians devoted their careers to the pursuit of elementary proofs. And there are obvious logical reasons for preferring elementary proofs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Obvious logical reasons? Really? Such as? There are reasons a logician might be interested in the matter, but that's not logical reasoning, and again in any event, this isn't a bias of Wikipedia but an ommision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:52, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I favor dropping the item on ''elementary proof''. I don't think that the concept is either well-defined or important. Yes, MathWorld gives a definition, but I do not believe that definition is accepted or used among mathematicians.
The point of this item seems to be that an elementary proof is somehow more rigorous or desirable than a non-elementary proof. However, I do not think that is true. If some mathematician has that view, then who is it? I think that it would be a minority view. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== We need to decide what this list is ==

Is this a list of examples of biases in Wikipedia or an example of problems with Wikipedia or a list of examples of foul-ups of Wikipedia or some combination? I see all three in this, all listed as examples of bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:52, 28 February 2007 (EST)

:Perhaps the list should be categorized; separate sections for bias, errors, omissions and whatever else. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::Bias underlies many "foul-ups" and "errors". I don't separating them into categories helps.

::One of the complaints about Wikipedia is how long-winded everything is. An encyclopedia should be concise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::''Some'' encyclopedias are not concise. For what it's worth... the Encyclopædia[sic--their spelling] Britannica 11th Edition (1911)'s article on the Bible runs from page to 849 to 894. That's forty-six pages. And an Encyclopædia Britannica page is several ordinary book pages (and many computer screens). I estimated once that the article would be about 1 megabyte of ASCII text. And then it's followed by "Bible, English" from pages 894 to 905. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:34, 2 March 2007 (EST)

While '''''some''''' foul-ups and errors may have underlying bias, most do not. In fact, I don't think that any of the errors pointed out in this page reflect bias; we should reove them completely. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:54, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:The following entry strikes me as wrong or misleading -

::"Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public".

:Just because those editors identify themselves as liberal does not, in fact, suggest that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It depends whether they are allowing their political views into their articles, whether the articles in question are capable of being politicised and whether the entire American population is made up of only liberals and conservatives. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:I am also a bit Challenged by the concept that something could be "six times more liberal" than something else. I wonder if Noam Chomsky is six times more liberal than Phyllis Schlafly? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:56, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::Horace makes a valid point. I thought about that "six times more liberal" ratio myself quite a bit, both before and after writing it. But what other number would make sense? Liberal by a 3:1 margin is many times more liberal than something that is conservative by a 2:1 margin. How many more times? Well, if the ratio went from 1:1 to 2:1 then we would say twice as many. When the ratio goes from 1:2 to 3:1 then six times as much seems appropriate. I welcome other suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Using ''no'' number would make sense. To write a statement like yours shows that you understand neither [[bias]] nor [[epidemiology|how to measure the occurrence of a condition in a population]]. [[User:Nooj|Nooj]] 13:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest that you remove the sentence-- I don't think that 'degrees of liberal' can be expressed accruately with a ratio.

Furthermore, I think that while we should strive to point out the liberalism of wikipedia, we should '''''not''''' by any means suggest that they be just as consevative/liberal as the general public. This (I hope) would be hypocrisy! We are trying to be as far to the right of the general public as possible.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:41, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::Can't resist:

::::Alice was puzzled. "In ''our'' country," she remarked, "there's only one day at a time."

::::The Red Queen said, "That's a poor thin way of doing things. Now ''here'', we mostly have days and nights two or three at a time, and sometimes in the winter we take as many as five nights together—for warmth, you know."

::::"Are five nights warmer than one night, then?" Alice ventured to ask.

::::"Five times as warm, of course."

::::"But they should be five times as ''cold,'' by the same rule--"

::::"Just so!" cried the Red Queen. "Five times as warm, ''and'' five times as cold—just as I'm five times as rich as you are, ''and'' five times as clever!"

:::Oh, a concrete suggestion: once you've said 'twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative"' it seems to me the point is made. Do you really need to say anything more? Readers can draw their own conclusions, numerically if they're so inclined. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Dpbsmith, I am not sure why you removed the following post of mine, but I thought it was relevant-

::::Actually, my maths isn't great, but I think six times is not right. If I had say 12 people drawn from the general population (and assuming everyone is either conservative or liberal), on your figures I would expect four of them to be liberals. If I had 12 Wikipedia editors I would expect nine of them to be liberals. That is not a sixfold increase.

::::I emphasise that I am not a mathematician.

::::Perhaps you should just say that liberals are grossly overrepresented as editors of Wikipedia.

:::Perhaps you removed it by accident. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:59, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::I wasn't aware of removing anything. Sorry. I agree with your math by the way.

:::Is everyone aware that the lists Aschafly cites are not polls, interviews, samples, or anything like that? It is the number of Wikipedians who are aware that these categories exist (they're not advertised, you're not encouraged to add one when you create an account or anything) and have decided they want people to know their views. It is reasonably analogous to driving through a medium city and counting 201 lawn signs for Democrats and 68 for Republicans, or counting bumper stickers on cars as they drive by on a highway. It probably means ''something'' but I'm not sure I'd care to do math on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:07, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::'''REPLY:''' I agree that there is some merit to the above comments. But where is the flaw in the math? Polls ''do'' show that the conservative-to-liberal ration is 2:1 among the American public. That alone is useful. I didn't know that before. Did you?

:::I don't know that I know it now. I'd like to know a lot more about that poll. How can the American public be 2/3 conservative and yet vote very close to 1/2 Democratic (e.g. popular vote in last two elections?) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:37, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::The American public is ''not'' 2/3 conservative; in the poll ASchlafly cites, the single largest group are the moderates, with 40% of the respondents. Compare to the list of moderate wikipedians, who number all of 22, and you begin to get the idea that these comparisons just aren't meaningful. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:22, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::The liberal-to-conservative ratio of 3:1 based on how many signed up for the corresponding Wikipedia pages is like yard signs, as Dpbsmith says. But a ratio in yard signs ''is'' indicative of a region's views. In some ways this is better than phoning people, because this reflects strength of conviction, and willingness to speak out. And thanks to Dpbsmith for the observation in the first place!

::The only suspect part of my analysis is to conclude that Wikipedia is 6 times as liberal as the American public. I thought more about this today. Don't we draw the same conclusion about relative concentrations in solution in chemistry? And don't we say something is "twice as hot" on the stove, or "twice as sweet" in candy? If anyone can explain a flaw in this, then I'd like to see and discuss it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::The error in the math becomes apparent if you treat the ratios as percentages (and again assume everyone is either liberal or conservative). In the general population 33.3% of people identify themselves as liberal (at the 2:1 ratio). At Wikipedia 75% identify themselves as liberal (at the 1:3 ratio). An increase from 33.3% to 75% is not a sixfold increase. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:50, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::To Aschlafly--Oh, well. Since you ask.

:::No, I don't think we say something is "twice as hot" on the stove. ''My'' stove just says "wm, low, med, med hi, hi." I can't imagine someone saying "make it twice as hot" when they mean "turn it up from medium to high." The oven says "WM, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, BROIL," but those aren't degrees Kelvin, and 400 is not "twice as hot" as 200. For example, if a recipe says to cook something for one hour at 400° it would not work to cook it for two hours at 200°.

:::I don't know about sweetness, but spice heat is (or formerly was) measured in Scoville units, which in turn represent the relative amount of dilution that produces the same sensation of spice heat. In other words, if habanero sauce diluted 10:1 tastes as hot as tabasco sauce, then habanero sauce is ten times as hot.

:::Now, applying this methodology to Wikipedia and to America, the question is: how much would we have to dilute Wikipedia by adding conservatives in order to make it match America? This is a nice little algebra word problem for your high-schoolers. Call the total Wikipedian population W. We're saying 3/4 of W is liberal. We want to dilute Wikipedia until it is 1/3 liberal, same as America. So, we're going to pour conservatives into Wikipedia, stirring gently, until it reaches a size X·W where it is now 1/3 liberal. At that point, we will say Wikipedia is X times as liberal as the America (because we had to had to make it X times bigger in order to get the proportion of conservatives the same as America).
:::Let the number of liberals in Wikipedia, before and after dilution, be L.
::::L = W·(3/4)
:::We want
::::L / (W·X) = 1/3
:::Substituting,
:::: (W·(3/4)) / (W·X) = 1/3
:::: (3/4) / X = (1/3)
:::: X = (3/4) / (1/3) = 9/4 = 2.25.

:::So, Wikipedia is 2.25 times as liberal as America.

:::Checking, if WIkipedia had 100 people, it would have 75 liberals. If we multiply it by 2.25, it would have 225 people and 75 liberals, so it would have 225 - 75 = 150 conservatives, or a 2:1 ratio.

:::But this is just a game... I'm sure there are other ways to frame the question that will yield other numbers. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:18, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:::Oh. Easier way to get the same number: 75% / 33.333% = 2.25. If you have 12 people and they are Wikipedians, 9 of them are liberal. If you have 12 people and they are Americans, 4 of them are liberal. 9 = 2.25 × 4.

:::Of course... if you have 12 people and they are Wikipedians, 3 of them are conservative. If you have 12 people and they are Americans, 8 of them are conservatives. So Wikipedia is 3/8 as conservative which make America 2.67 times as conservative as Wikipedia, which seemingly would make Wikipedia 2.67 time as liberal as America. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:32, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::'''REPLY:''' I don't think the above analysis compares the "concentrations" of liberals in the two "solutions".

:: How about drawing an analogy to a pH scale? Call conservative low pH and liberal high pH, so that we can find a ration. 2 parts conservative and one part liberal would yield a low pH. 3 parts liberal and 1 part conservative would yield another pH. I wonder what the ratio would be?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::Well, pH is ''approximately'' minus the natural logarithm of the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. Since litmus turns Democratic blue in an alkaline solution and Republican red in an acid solution, I guess hydrogen ions (acid) correspond to conservatives. The, uh... uh-oh... pC... of the American public would be -log10(2/3) = 0.176, and the pC of Wikipedia would be -log10(1/4) = 0.602. (Higher pH numbers mean less acidic, and higher pC numbers mean less conservative... so I guess pC works out after all!)

::::I am not going to do anything at all with regard to comparing 0.176 and 0.602. Here are two numbers. I calculated them and I showed how I calculated them. Ain't gonna say nothing more. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:16, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::: The ratios imply that WP has 6 times as many liberals as you would expect from the number of conservatives. Or the number of conservatives would have to be increased by a factor of 6 in order to match the American public. But it doesn't follow that WP is 6x as liberal as the public. If WP really functioned properly, you would only need at least one conservative editor and one liberal editor on each article. As long as they reached a consensus, then the article should be balanced, even if the number of editors is uneven. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Instead of using all of these hypothetical analogies, why don't we work with what we have. there are about 3.75 million wikipedia editors so at 3:1 that would make 2,812,500 Liberals. there are about 300 million people in the U.S. so at 2:1 that would make 100 million Liberals. 300 million/3.75 million = 80. so multiply the liberal Wikipedians by 80 to aproximate the US population to get 225 million or '''2.25''' times as many liberals. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:30, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: Your math is flawed because it doesn't recognize that all the people who are neither liberal or conservative. The simple way to see this is as follows: what fraction of the liberals on Wikipedia now would give it the same balance as the American public? 1/6th. Hence Wikipedia is currently 6 times more liberal than the American public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:33, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::: You are automatically assuming that when you adjust the the numbers that the number of conservatives does not change. To do it properly you have to raise the number of conservatives as well as lower the number of liberals. The percentage of "unbiased" (for lack of a better word) people should stay the same. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Indeed. Amplifying a bit, as long as there's one conservative editor who is capable of adding conservative material that accords with Wikipedia's policies (particularly source citation and "facts about opinion, not opinions"), and one liberal editor similarly capable of adding liberal material, and provided the effective pool of active editors in the article really support Wikipedia's policies and are ''reasonably'' able to judge material objectively against policy... the article should stay balanced.

:::::Thus, the number that matters is not the relative number of liberal and conservative editors. It is the percentage of edits that are made by editors who are truly committed to the neutrality and verifiability policies. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:23, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Right, it would be easy for Wikipedia to restore balance in such a manner. In fact, this is how the media ensures balance on certain shows (e.g., Crossfire) and many debates. But Wikipedia does not do this. Rather, it behaves in the same manner as a lynch mob. There is nothing neutral about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:26, 4 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Fascinating, one thing I couldn't stand about Crossfire was that it felt a need to break everything down into liberal v. conservative, make sure to label who was on which side and then let them scream each other. Not every issue is simply liberal v. conservative, and I'd have to say that if Crossfire is the ideal, I'd rather be non-ideal. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:40, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Something about Wikis acts as a positive-feedback loop that amplifies bad behavior. It can be infuriating to have an edit reverted or deleted. Wikipedia regularly does show "lynch-mob-like" behavior, but the lynch mobs are small, dissolve quickly, and have relatively little affect on the overall content of Wikipedia, other than to get some people so totally alienated as to never be able to think straight about WIkipedia ever again. Wikipedia to some extent is part of the USENET "flamewar" culture, and I think its [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_age age composition] may be more of a problem than its political composition.

:::::: With nobody in authority to make final decisions on policy (no, admins do ''not'' effectively have the ability to do this), borderlines are fuzzy, and everything on the border is resolved by border disputes, with inconsistent outcomes. Really notable things don't get deleted. True vanity articles always get deleted. But your Conservapedias and obscure Norwegian politicians (Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa, Minister of Education and Church Affairs 1913-1915) and articles about middle schools are on the borderline. AFD discussions about borderline articles tend to show WIkipedia at its very worst. However, you might be surprised at how often one of these discussions starts with "piling on" in the delete direction, with curt comments, and ends with a reversal ''if'' people find and quote good sources or improve the article mid-discussion.

:::::: There are certain Wikipedia characteristics that may be properly criticized, but that do ''not'' add up to consistent, systematic liberal bias. For example, the neutrality policy in operation leads to a tendency to ''include unflattering information.'' Wikipedia biographies are never respectful puff pieces, and you may be absolutely sure that an article on Ted Kennedy will mention Chappaquiddick (let me check: yep); that an article on Barney Frank will mention his affair with whozis (let me check: yep, and the name I was trying to remember was "Steve Gobie"), and similarly for Gerry Studds (check), Gary Hart (check), etc. I don't even remember whether Wilbur Mills was a Republican or a Democrat, but I certainly remember his being found wandering drunk in the Tidal Basis (whatever that is!) with a stripper, and I expect the WIkipedia article to remember it, too. (Check: "Mills is perhaps best known for a drunken incident on October 7, 1974, with an Argentine stripper known as Fanne Foxe." And he was a Democrat). Tabloid-like? Maybe. Politically biassed? No.

:::::: Poor Wilbur Mills! All that time in Congress, and his legacy is "best known for a drunken incident... with an Argentine stripper known as Fanne Foxe." But isn't it accurate? Without looking at Wikipedia's article (or anyone else's), can you remember any other single concrete thing about him? In my case... I have a vague notion that he was really important, so much so that I mistakenly thought he was a Senator, not a Representative But I can't think of a ''specific'' thing he did apart from the Tidal Basin incident. Can you?

:::::: By the way, although the liberal blogs have had a lot of fun with Conservapedia's objection to British spellings, I have to say I at least see Aschlafly's point. To a newcomer to Wikipedia, redirects seem like magic. I can see how typing in "phonograph record" and getting "Gramophone record" could feel as if Wikipedia were saying "No, dummy, you're wrong, it's ''gramophone.''" No handy little explanation pops up to explain that Wikipedia is deliberately inconsistent and is not endorsing one term over the other. I don't know if its ever gotten to the point of a U. S. kid telling a teacher, "No, that's the wrong spelling, Wikipedia says..." but I can imagine it happening. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:04, 4 March 2007 (EST)

This "six times more liberal" thing is comparing an anonymous poll to non-anonymous affiliations that people choose to put on their user pages, right? It could mean that liberals are just more enthusiastic about announcing their beliefs, or less certain of them when polled anonymously. The numbers can't be compared directly. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

While I appreciate the rigor in which this discussion page examines the underlying mathematics of the ratio, I think many have missed the underlying error in logic. Namely, you are comparing two entirely different things -- a group of people and a website. Therefore, you cannot somehow create a formula which attempts to quantify the latter. Some word substitutions will help illustrate my point:

''Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as '''"obese"''' compared with '''"thin,"''' and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as '''"thin"''' compared with '''"obese"'''. That suggests Wikipedia is '''six times thinner''' than the American public.''

''Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as '''"not likely to wear a hat"''' compared with '''"likely to wear a hat"''', and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as '''"likely to wear a hat"''' compared with '''"not partial to hats"'''. That suggests Wikipedia is six times more '''"likely to wear a hat"''' than the American public.''

I trust my point has been made. That such a glaring logistical error appears on the article describing Conservapedia's catalyst is something I find rather amusing. Then again, perhaps Conservapedia's best chance of survival is targeting those who are less adept at following logic and/or reading comprehension.
--[[User:Hopfrog|Hopfrog]] 19:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Presence of an article about Conservapedia on Wikipedia. ==
I don't know how much attention anyone here was paying attention to matters, but pursuant to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_25 this Deletion Review discussion] the article has been recreated since there are now many [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Reliable_sources|reliable sources]], and the article can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

: I am wonder who added a comment in the WP article on CP saying that CP has been criticized because the CP article on the Democrat Party includes a sentence describing a harsh view from a critic. It is criticism of the criticism of the criticism, and I am criticizing it here! Somebody needs to tell WP editors that it is not necessary to document every criticism. When an article gets to be more than half criticism, then it probably has too much. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:38, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:::That sentence certainly looks tendentious, rather than factual, to ''me.'' (Of course, I think the article [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] is precisely 6.23 Scoville units ''more'' tendentious...)

:::As with Conservapedia, the entire history of the article is open to examination. The comment was added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&diff=next&oldid=112296143 here] by user Kronix1986. I am ''not'' going to act as some kind of human gateway between Conservapedia and Wikipedia and want to ''try'' to stay out of the incestuous business of editing each Wiki's article on each other. I'd suggest that ''if'' you wanted this comment removed, your best approach would be to say something about it on the article's Talk page, because when you're closely involved in an article sometimes keeping a little distance is better than direct editing. It's easier to present cogent comments on a Talk page than in an edit comment, for example.

:::The argument ''I'' would use is that the statement isn't supported by the cited source. The [http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2024434,00.html cited source] uses the passage ''as an example of the difference'' between the two sites. It does not criticize Conservapedia for this passage, nor does it say that Conservapedia has been criticized for this passage. Furthermore the phrase "seemingly pejorative" is a good example of weasel terms, which Wikipedia has a guideline against. In other words, the statement is clearly editorializing, ''not'' reporting something published elsewhere.

:::(This could, of course, be remedied by rewording the passage to say "One passage, used by a Guardian Unlimited writer to exemplify the different approaches of the two sites, is...") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:23, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: Good luck dealing with folks who are six times more liberal than the American public! There isn't any chance that Wikipedia will have a fair or reasonably unbiased entry about Conservapedia.

:: That's OK, because this is great fodder for illustrating Wikipedia's bias. I've added a point (around #5, I think) in our list of Examples here. Watch Wikipedia's editors change its entry about Conservapedia as I point out its biased errors here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 4 March 2007 (EST)

::::Which would, of course, be a Bad Thing? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:49, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::: Point, if you look at the talk page for the Conservapedia there was additional criticism that didn't go in because it was decided that it would be problematic. Furthermore, attempts were made to find more reliable sources that were positive. Attempts were unsuccesful. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:46, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== Regarding American versus English spelling policy ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. They might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

It's interesting because America somewhere along the line changed the spelling of these words. In fact most of the English world (I'm from Australia) views the American spelling as the strange version. It seems to me that this insistence on spelling everything the American way is just another example of American arrogance. I thought the reference to the European ruling family was espicially silly. I personally have no problem with Wikipedia using the proper English spelling for words. [[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I would like to add a "here, here," to the remarks by Conservative. Furthermore, it seems that Conservapedia is in conflict with itself. When it comes to dates Conservapedia wishes to favor the "historical" anno Domini system in contrast to the newly developed Common Era system. But when it comes to spelling, Conservapedia decides that the historical spelling system should be discouraged and the newly developed American spelling should be used. The foundations for British spelling were published in 1755 as compared to the foundations for American spelling which were published in 1828 (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_and_British_English_spelling_differences&oldid=113116955] for more information). Does Conservapedia have an actual system for determining what it prefers or is this all merely the opinions of a small group of individuals?
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 03:47, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:Conservapedia has an extremely strong American and Christian bias. Extremely religious Christians probably view C.E. and B.C.E. as blasphemies because they are ignorant of the rest of the world having other religions. Similarly, America is ignorant to the English spelling that the rest of the world uses. Canada and all of Europe use the "foreign" spelling, despite it being the original. The world does not revolve around America, so the two recognized international standards should be used: C.E. and B.C.E., and UK English. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==LIBERAL BIAS==

We should change the name of this page to "Examples of Lliberal Bias in Wikipedia".

We don't care about (in fact some of us welcome) conservative bias. The above name would not seem hypocritical. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:38, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Who said any of us here actually welcome conservative bias? This wiki was advertised as having a conservative ''perspective,'' not a conservative bias. And this difference is really rather important. A conservative perspective would merely show people how conservatives view the different things happening in the world. A conservative bias would be presenting information with the conservative perspective but instead of presenting it as the way conservatives view things it would be presented as the way things are. I hope that made sense :)
I am not a conservative, I am a liberal. That said, seeing the conservative perspective is, in fact, really intriguing and helpful to me. Conservative bias, just like liberal bias, is not in my best interests and would definitely '''not''' be welcome by some members who are curious liberals. If this is in fact an attempt to convert people throwing in bias is not going to help.
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 03:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:You may find this debate interesting... [[How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]] --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Re #32 ==

With regards to criticism #32 this can, and will, happen to any information source. Any system that involves humans is going to have errors. I assume that no member of conservapedia would be so bold as to say there is not one error within the articles. The ''Daily News'' or whatever the paper was are largely to blame as well. Any news source that publishes material based on only one source deserves to feel the slap of public humiliation.
Finally, I would like to ask, as I honestly do not know, how this is an example of bias (as the article title indicates it is)? Is it some form of Pro-Ivy-League-Rutgerian bias?
--[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 04:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: It reflects a lack of accountability which is a by-product of the systematic bias. It also demonstrates that the distortions in Wikipedia do matter, as newspapers and others are relying on them and repeating them. Why any system has some errors, you're not likely to find this kind of error in a real encyclopedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== On the definition of pseudoscience ==

One of the arguments presented is "It currently offers a article on the topic listed under the category "Pseudoscience". What reputable encyclopedia uses such an unencyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism?" The definition given for this is "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method." There are indeed people who claim that [Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|creation is scientific]. As it stands Creationism and Intelligent Design do not make testable theories nor is it falsifiable and thus it is not scientific.

It is unfortunate that this falls into a similar category as people making claims about astrology, ghosts, and crop circles. If this is not attempted to be presented as scientific fact and stayed as a religious belief, one would assume that it would not be categorized as pseudoscience.

This is a poor critique of wikipedia that weakens other arguments. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:You disappoint me, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]. On what grounds do you declare that creation science does not follow the scientific method? For example: did you know that a number of geologists have already shown that current models of [[radiometric dating]] do not correlate well with one another in dating various objects, and indeed often produce inconsistent dates for the same object? These geologists have shown--''by the scientific method''--that those methods have their basis on improper assumptions and sometimes on [[circular reasoning]].

:They have since determined, after exhaustive reviews and their own data-gathering, that the uniformitarian assumptions behind most of the dating models are totally untenable--and that radioactive decay was in fact ''accelerated'' at a key moment in early earth history.

:Testable theories, sir. Even falsifiable theories.

:The worthies at [[Wikipedia]] have never shown a willingness to examine the hypotheses that leading creation scientists have formulated and tested. They have simply concluded that the world and mankind ''cannot'' have been created, and ''must'' have formed out of nothing, and that "we just don't understand yet how it happened." Now ''that'' is pseudoscience.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:If you think the term "pseudoscience" reflects a "sensitive tone" then I suggest telling a scientist that his work is "pseudoscience". I would also suggest that the scientific method was invented by Francis Bacon who likely believed in creationism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
:: Bacon's was a creationist - one quote of his is "I had rather believe all the fables in the legends and the Talmud and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind". He also encouraged experimentation and the use of induction to discover more about the world. Unfortunately, Francis Bacon died a century before the voyage of HMS Beagle and thus had no observations to the contrary. Can you suggest an alternate name for what to call something that calls itself science without using the scientific method? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::You have no warrant whatsoever to claim that Sir Francis Bacon would have recanted his statement after a meeting with Darwin post-''Beagle''. That would have been an interesting conversation, to be sure. However--you want another name? I'll cite you several. Try Michael Behe. Or Larry Vardiman and Stephen A. Austin of the RATE ('''R'''adioisotopes and the '''A'''ge of '''T'''he '''E'''arth) Group.

:::Cargo cult science? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Thats not quite appropriate. The Cargo Cult involves copying without understanding. Cargo cult science would involve copying significant portions of other experiments because "thats the way it is done" rather than understanding the reason behind it. It would still be invoking the scientific method including falsifiability. With peer review, cargo cult science tends to get smacked down quite hard. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:55, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Jimmy Wales and atheism/passionate adherent of Ayn Rand's Objectivism ==

Should we include that "Wales has been a passionate adherent of Ayn Rand's Objectivism" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_wales] in this article in relation to Wikipedia's material on Christianity and creationism/evolution? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
: Does the founder's philosophy of personal liberty and individual rights constitute a bias in the organization against Christianity? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Is that all that Ayn Rand's Objectivism espouses? Does objectivism have any relation to atheism and have all societies which have officially embraced atheism persecuted Christians? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: Check out the article on [[Objectivism]] that I expanded recently. I know this subject because I was once an adherent of Objectivism before I, for lack of a better term, "got saved" and "came to know [[God|The Lord]]." I also know where some of the bodies are buried...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:55, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: Ayn Rand's philosophy is atheistic. But I don't know how much of an issue to make of Jimmy Wales' personal views. His editors are making the numerous biased decisions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::Asclhafly, who controls the editors at Wikipedia? In short, who picks the admins at Wikipedia and more importantly who decides to discipline the Wikipedia admins for inappropriate conduct? I am asking these questions because I am not very knowledgeable about the power structure at Wikipedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:::: We have Wiki admins here who can answer this better than I. But my understanding is that Wiki admins are picked from the "ground up", by nomination and acclamation, rather than by selection by Jimmy Wales. I doubt that Jimmy Wales' personal beliefs have anything to do with the bias on Wikipedia. The real problem is the lack of meaningful principles which results in mob rule, and the mob has become a liberal one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::: I'm not going to address the mob issues and such since I doubt I will change anyone's opinions, but to comment: admins are choosen by community consensus (as Andrew put it from the "ground up"). Jimbo only steps in under very limited circumstances and then has not stepped in any any political issue in my memory. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Please note that this is still a relatively small(but growing) website compared to Wikipedia. Jimbo may not step in anymore, but is it possible that, when Wikipedia was small site, he did? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::At Wikipedia, anybody can nominate an admin. In fact, anyone can nominate ''themselves'' as an admin. There is then a discussion in which people express support/oppose/neutral. The decision-making process is: "At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are a significant factor in determining consensus (few RfAs succeed with less than 75% support), but a request for adminship is not a ballot." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::::: Thanks for Joshua's and Dpbsmith's insights. But David R makes an excellent point also. If Jimmy Wales embraces Ayn Rand (which is an atheistic philosophy), then that could set the tone and have an effect. He doesn't have to intervene often. The fact that he is enormously respected, as Dpbsmith says, only *increases* the influence of his belief system on the project. So I'm OK with referring to his Ayn Rand philosophy, but let's make sure it is well-supported (preferably by quotes) and done in a tasteful manner. Truth be told, I respect Jimmy Wales also and have emphasized this with reporters. I loved Wikipedia in the old days and I lament how it has gone down the wrong path.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::::: I doubt that most editors even know what Jimbo's personal religous and political views are. Heck, I'd go further and suggest that I'd be surprised if more than half the admins knew that a) Jimbo was an objectivist and b) knew that objectivism was atheistic in nature. Now, if people don't know what opinions Jimbo has, it is hard for respect for him to influence things much. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:22, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::::JoshuaZ, I know you are a Wikipedia Admin and I was hoping you could answer the question, "Who decides when to discipline the Wikipedia Admins for inappropriate conduct? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
:::::::::Admins can be disciplined by Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee, generally someone has to complain first. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::::: To be clear, admins are very rarely disciplined, and when they are the discipline is generally for abuse of the admin tools, not for anything else. Indeed, if one looks at the prominent examples of admins being disciplined they have almost nothing to do with politics or religion. For example, there was a group of admins who got into a wheel war over deleting/restoring the article on Daniel Brandt and one of them was desyopped as a result. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Disciplining admins is ''very'' rare. I don't know exactly how admins have had their admin status revoked but I'll bet it's on the order of one a year, or less. "Banning" users (permanent blocks) are very rare, too, and it only happens after more discussion online that you could possibly believe. (A "wheel war" is analogous to an edit war and occurs when two sysops alternatively undo and redo some action). There are currently 849 active admins on Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:51, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Two more points to be made. First off, the feeling of "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" up to this suggestion seem to be things that could be rectified. This one is doubtful if it could be rectified if it is indeed an issue. Secondly, if it was the case that this is a valid criticism, then a likewise valid criticism of conservapedia is that it was founded by a Christian conservative. This is not to say that either Christian conservative or objectivist is a bad thing, but if one is a valid criticism, then the other is likely too. As this is not part of the criticisms section of wikipedia (for good reason) to include it here would reduce any moral high ground that is had. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::JoshuaZ, Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee decide when to discipline Admins. Who decides who is on the Arbitration Committee? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
::: Each year, some of the arbitration commitee spots go up for election. Users with at least a certain number of edits and certain amount of time on the project can then bullet for or against a candidate. Each candidates total votes (number of support-number of oppose) is then tallied. Of those with very high approval ratings (what percentage this is has I think varied from election to election) Jimbo selects to be on the commitee. In practice, Jimbo picks almost all as the ones with the most votes, although this has not always been the case. Summarizing how ArbCom is elected is a bit complicated since we keep changing the voting procedure and how much input Jimbo has. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:07, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::JoshuaZ, you wrote: In practice, Jimbo picks almost all as the ones with the most votes, '''although this has not always been the case.''' Why hasn't it always been the case? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
::::: I have no idea, you'll have to ask Jimbo his reasoning. In at least one case (that of Jayjg) there were a number of other candidates with more votes (I don't remember precisely how many, I think 3 or 4). That was 2 or three years ago, I don't think Jimbo has done it since. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and breast cancer ==

The article claims that:

"Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[6] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[7]."

, while this is plainly not true. Wikipedia has an entire article (50 kilobytes long!!) about it, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis here] Please, someone who has sufficient priveleges, change the article to admit this information. {{unsigned|GofG}}

: Your link is not to the Wikipedia entry on "abortion", which is what most people will access. Also, please sign your comments by clicking the signature button above. Thanks and welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Fine. Here is the link to the section on breast cancer in the abortion article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer], which contains a link to the aforementioned article. And I did sign my comment; there was an edit conflict and I had to retype it all out and I forgot to resign it. [[User:GofG|GofG]] 21:52, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I just checked that link on Wikipedia. It is extraordinarily biased, ending with statements about the views of organizations that do not conduct any research and have obvious liberal biases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:: Andrew, it is linked in the article right where you would expect it to be, under the summary section dealing with ABC. I'd also be curious as to what you mean by "organizations that do not conduct any research and have obvious liberal biases" [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::: Whether or not it's biased is not the question. The article says that wikipedia "omits" it. They do not omit it, they just have a biased article about it. There is a difference. Why not put:

::::"Wikipedia denies that the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies is notable."

:::Or something like that that exposes the bias but does not lie. [[User:GofG|GofG]] 22:12, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:That sounds good. Why not put that? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:07, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I couldn't find this in Wikipedia, or anything like, and hence the statement is correct that Wikipedia omits this: "Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion"--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Wikipedia six times more liberal than public?==

Someone needs to check their math on this one. If twice as many people identify themselves as conservative as liberal, then 1/3 of the public identifies themselves as liberal. If 3 times as many Wikipedia editors identify themselves as liberal instead of conservative, then 3/4 of Wikipedia editors identify themselves as liberal. 3/4 divided by 1/3 is 9/4, or 2.25. Therefore, "six times" is just incorrect math, and 2.25 times is the correct answer.

: Please sign your entries using the signature button above. Your math is flawed: many people do not identify themselves as either liberal or conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: Fine then, let's group everyone into the categories liberal, conservative, and moderate. Let L1 be the fraction of liberal members of the public, L2 be the fraction of liberal members at Wikipedia, M1 be the fraction of moderate members of the public, M2 be the fraction of moderate members on Wikipedia, C1 be the fraction of conservatives in the public, and C2 be the fraction of conservatives on Wikipedia. By your own statistics, C1 = 2*L1, and 3*C2 = L2. Also, by definition, C1+L1+M1 = 1 and C2+L2+M2 = 1. Combining these equations, 2*L1+L1+M1 = 3L1 + M1 = 1, and L2+L2/3+M2 = (4/3)L2 + M2 = 1. Equating the two 1's, 3L1 + M1 = 1 = (4/3)L2 + M2. Shuffling things around, L2 = (3/4)*(3L1 + M1 - M2) = (9/4)L1 + (3/4)(M1-M2) = 2.25*L1 + 0.75*(M1-M2). L2/L1 = 2.25 + 0.75*(M1-M2)/L1 = 2.25 + 2.25*(M1-M2)/(1-M1) = 2.25*(1-M1+M1-M2)/(1-M1) = 2.25*(1-M2)/(1-M1). If the percentages of moderates in the public and Wikipedia are equal, then L2 = 2.25*L1, as I stated. If the number of moderates is higher in the public than on Wikipedia, then L2 is more than 2.25L1. If the number of moderates is lower in the public than on Wikipedia, then L2 is less than 2.25L1. What is the exact value? It depends on the explicit value of M1 and M2. You cannot say with any certainty that it is 6. In fact, it is most likely to be in the range from 2 to 2.5--[[User:Manchot|Manchot]] 22:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what the currently entry states at: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

::"Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[4] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[5] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."

::Next I have not read footnote #4 yet but I am guessing that people identify themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:09, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:::Here is what footnote #4 states: "On a decade-by-decade basis, Conservatives grew modestly from 32% in the 1970s to 36% in the 1980s, and 38% in the 1990s. So far in the 2000s they comprise 34% of adults. Liberals have remained constant at 18% and moderates have held the lead with 40% or 41% in each decade."[http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:::: Is it not impossible for liberal editors to edit neutrally. Just because the editors are liberal doesn't mean the content is liberal; they are working for neutrality. It might be better worded as "Wikipedia ''editors'' six times more liberal than public." [[User:GofG|GofG]] 22:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::The content of Wikipedia is more liberal than most encyclopedias and I think my recent addition to the list was very telling: "In the mid-20th century, one of the few "authorities" to assert that Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopedia.[1] Wikipedia currently writes in its article on Jesus the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[2] Now it is certainly true that a small amount of scholars assert this matter but it is also true that it is a minuscule amount of scholars and none of them are historians which Wikipedia fails to mention. And what does Wikipedia offer in regards to a mythological Jesus that never existed? It offers a article entitled "Jesus as myth" which has a section titled "Specific arguments of the theory" and has had a long history of having warnings like "This section may contain original research or unattributed claims."[3] Why does the article in question have a long history of warning to its readers and why doesn't Wikipedia seem to want to do anything about it? In addition, Wikipedia would be hard pressed to cite a current reputable encyclopedia which prominently cites in its Jesus article a statement like "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus." in its first two paragraphs. What current encyclopedia other than Wikipedia spends time on the proposition that Jesus never existed and does such a unscholarly job of presenting this matter?" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::::It might be that the majority of other encyclopedias are conservative biased. I'm not saying this is true, it's just a possibility. Why does the article have a long history of warnings? Because they don't want the readers to be mislead into believing the information, as it is not verified. What exactly is wrong with that? Removing the information entirely would be denying its notability and existance, which is also unencyclopedic. Do you have any other articles to cite? [[User:GofG|GofG]] 22:34, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::::I was being generous in what I wrote. Wikipedia has had the same warning for ages. Every time I look at the article it has had that warning. Why doesn't someone clean up the mess? I believe it is because they are reticent to delete unsourced liberal material and Wikpedia just doesn't care about "unsourced junk" written about Jesus that denies he existed. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:::: According to your data, then, M1 = 0.4 or 0.41. Plugging into my equation, L2/L1 = 2.25*(1-M2)/(1-0.41) = 3.81356 * (1-M2). M2, the fraction of Wikipediaers who are moderates, can (by definition) only range from 0 to 1. Therefore, the '''very maximum''' is 3.81 (assuming that no Wikipediaers are moderates, which is unlikely to be true). Six is incorrect.--[[User:Manchot|Manchot]] 22:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Look at this way: How many more conservatives would we need on Wikipedia such its balance reflected the American public? Wikipedia is 3:1 liberal, so we need six times as many conservatives. Six is correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:23, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Then what you should be saying is that Wikipedia is six times less conservative, not six times more liberal. As you pointed out yesterday, there is a major difference. Plus, if you're going to make extraordinary claims, you need to back them up with actual numbers, not a hand-waving argument. If you do the appropriate substitutions into the equation above, you'll find that C1/C2 = 1.573/(1-M2). For this to be equal to 6 would require that M2=0.73, i.e., about 3/4ths of Wikipedians would have to be moderates.--[[User:Manchot|Manchot]] 22:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)

This calculation is indeed deeply flawed. If you keep it like this you run the risk that liberal will view it as confirmation that conservatives can't do math. You compare a representative poll with the areas of interests of Wikipedians. The results of the poll are that 18% of Americans are liberal, 34 % conservatives, and 40% moderates. The Wikipedia numbers are that of 3.7 million Wikipedians, 204 are interested in liberal themes and 77 in conservative themes. This means that less than 0.0075 % of all Wikipedians are either conservative or liberal (or both). And the chances that this miniscule self selected sample is representative is next to nothing. You can't do statistics with this sample. You simply compare apples with next to nothing. I'd suggest to remove this entry altogether. Otherwise you just confirm the liberal idea that conservatives fudge numbers as they please. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 11 March 2007 (AEST)

: Folks, the math is correct, and no one credibly disputes that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Those who do dispute it only serve to illustrate the deception of Wikipedians pretending not to be biased. Be up-front about your point-of-view. Are you liberal yourselves? Don't be bashful, disclose your point-of-view as we do here, and then we can have a more meaningful dialog. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Sorry, the math is really incorrect. It doesn't serve you well to label everybody who points to wrong math as ''liberal''. A valid point (bias in Wikipedia) is tainted by invalid math, especially when combined with calling names to settle a mathematical dispute. This point is just a red herring, and will do nothing than give people an opportunity to ridicule Conservapedia and its editors. There is nothing wrong with droppoing this point, since everybody knows that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:55, 12 March 2007 (AEST)

::: Exactly. If someone who agrees with my political philosophy is using obviously incorrect logic to prove their point, that makes me look worse by comparison. The math is incorrect, and saying that is isn't make it so.

Based on the above stated information, the Wikipedia survey is not representative as the basic assumption for statistical validity (random selection, or precise stratification) is violated. However, let us assume it is valid and forget about the math, then next question arising will be:
what is the point?
It is common knowledge that Americans tend to be more conservative than the average world citizen. But why should the American public be particularly relevant to Wikipedia, which extends far beyond America?
The idea that it is a bias if Wikipedia's authors do not mirror the American public, seems to reveal a narrow and ethnocentric scope of the authors behind "Conservapedia". A bias which Wikipedia (thank God) does not seem to have.

==Item 12==

This is not an example of bias, but rather a simple convention. The English spelling of the word is the proper spelling, the American spelling is a branch spelling and not appropriate for some topics. This is why the US Courts still use Anglo-English spellings.
--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]]

: Thanks for your comment, but I can assure you that US Courts use American spellings of words. I don't know where your comment here comes from: "The English spelling of the word is the proper spelling." I respectfully disagree. But I hope you can contribute edits here, and in your case we'll be mindful of your preference for English spellings!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm a legal major and have read many a court file and the use of English terms is actually quite common, however, it is in a sense traditional. Also, many international courts use the English spelling.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think that this should be included as an example of bias. The British spelling is no inherently better or worse than the American spelling, and it is ludicrous to pretend otherwise. The bias list has some good points, but they are being weakened by silly points like number 12.--[[User:Manchot|Manchot]] 23:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: There seems to be an anti-American undercurrent to the spelling issue, just as there is an anti-Christian motive to erasing "A.D." We have vandals on this site going around changing American to British spellings. No joke. The same must be occurring on Wikipedia because non-American spellings turn up in the oddest of places. When most users are Americans and the system was started in America, doesn't that strike you as a bit odd??? American-bashing seems to have become quite a sport around the world, and this is part of it. American spelling is more economical, by the way. "Color", not "Colour". The "u" need not be there. Americans love the British, by the way, and every four years we elect a British descendent as president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Out of curiosity, how is American English "more economical"? Also, have all the presidents really been British decendents? Are you sure no one's been of a German, French, etc line? And thirdly, I keep seeing people talk about how most wikipedia users are American, do you have proof of this or is it an assumption. I would imagine there are more users/speakers of the Queen's English in the world than the American version. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::...who says most users are Americans? The site is frequented by users from the entire world. If you trust [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=wikipedia.org/ Alexa], 21.3% of its users are from the US, but 54% of all users go to en.wikipedia. That means that less than half the people on the English Wikipedia are from the US.
::::Of course, there are a few weak points with this argument (and with yours). We both currently assume that every visitor/editor contributes an equal share to Wikipedia, and we both assume that Alexa is halfway accurate to measure site statistics (which I personally doubt, but I accept it as the best approximation we can get). Then there is the question what kind of English is taught in the other countries (and what the individual editor ends up using - for example, I learned English in school, but later basically switched to American), but there is no practical way to answer this question on a site like Wikipedia - it's simply too large.
::::As such, I'd just go with the most intuitive explanation: Editors use what they are used to, and often enough, it's not American. It's not about being anti-American or bashing the US. It's just what they personally find intuitive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Additional problems with Wikipedia==
* Blatant double standard as to what constitutes "reliable sources". Wikipedia is supposed to pride itself on its Neutral Point of View policy and sourcing articles to reliable, neutral, third party sources which are not partisan and not self-published. Yet there is a clique of administrators who insist that self-published material from such extremist, partisan groups as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Political Research Associates meets the reliable sources criteria. In particular attack articles from the SPLC have been linkspammed to a large number of articles to attack the subjects of those articles, especially people involved in immigration issues. The SPLC's ritual defamation tactic of labeling any group they don't like a "hate group" is given sanction by Wikipedia editors who add the "SPLC has designated this group a hate group" label to articles.
* Bias in favor of postmodernism and postmodernist notions. Wikipedia is littered with articles like "Gender roles", "Anti-bias curriculum", "Oppression" and so on which promote the notions that reality is a social construct; "gender roles" is written of as if it is a real thing instead of a postmodernist neologism to describe what are actually gender ''traits''; racism and sexism are instutionalized "systems" of oppression inherent in Western culture rather than prejudices held by individuals; etc. I could dig up hundreds of such articles and put together a "worst of Wikipedia" list if I had the time to do so.
* Rampant political correctness. The Wikipedia article on political correctness is skeptical and gives too much credence to the notion that there is no such thing as PC, yet at the same time Wikipedia is cluttered with thousands of articles promoting the POV every would-be "systemically oppressed" group imaginable. Wikipedia is full of Aspergers Syndrome-cruft, illegal alien advocacy cruft including multiple articles on every pro-illegal immigration protest in recent months, articles that smack of being elaborate jokes or just plain absurd like "Anti-racist mathematics" and "Neurodiversity", etc.
* Systemic bias against guns and private firearms ownership. Two different articles with the anti-Second Amendment neologism "gun violence" in the title, a "Category:Deaths by Firearm", etc. All attempts at deleting or renaming these biased names have failed.
* The Wikiproject on "countering systemic bias" is itself extremely systemically biased, as most of the subject areas in that project smack of whiny political correctness.

[[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 10:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Wow! Your points are superb. With specific examples and citations I could add them to the content page here. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks - here are just a few off the top of my head:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role] - "A 'gender role' is a set of behavioral norms associated particularly with males or females, in a given social group or system. It can be a form of division of labour by gender. It is a focus of analysis in the social sciences and humanities. Gender is one component of the gender/sex system, which refers to "The set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity, and in which these transformed needs are satisfied" (Reiter 1975: 159). Most societies have a gender/sex system, although the components and workings of this system vary widely from society to society.[citation needed] Some see "gender roles" as oppressive stereotypical expectations imposed by society."
::(The "gender/sex system" by the way refers to a belief that gender and ones physical sex are not the same thing, that somebody can be born a woman but be a man inside, or vise versa.)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-bias_curriculum] - these two articles speak for themselves.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression] - "The term oppression is primarily used to describe how a certain group is being kept down by unjust use of force, authority, or societal norms. When this is institutionalized formally or informally in a society, it is referred to as "systematic oppression"."
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._English] - 2/3 of the article is criticism of the group.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-only_movement] - Uses the left-wing's term for the movement instead of the term "Official English" preferred by the movement itself.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity] - another absurdity. Autism, Parkinsons, and Tourettes are not diseases that need a cure, but should be accepted as an integral part of "who they are".
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory] - "This binary may itself be a false dichotomy, as discourse shapes our understanding of what is natural and what is cultural shapes discourse-- but it still is a useful starting point for exploring these debates. Constructivists counter that there is no natural, that all meaning is constructed through discourse and there is no other subject other than the creation of meaning for social theory. In a Constructivist perspective it is not proper to take gay or lesbian as subjects with objective reality; but rather they must be understood in terms of their social context, in how genealogy creates these terms through history."
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Countering_systemic_bias] - Claims Wikipedia has a "systemic bias" against topics related to non-English speaking people, the third world, women, non-Judeo-Christian religions, etc.
::That's just a start. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 15:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Fantastic! I added a new point 2 on your stuff. Will add more also. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I have to object to some of this. While I agree that some of these discuss ideas or topics that are absurd (Anti-racist mathematics is one that particularly annoys me) they are legitimate topics of articles and Wikipedia would be remiss not to have articles on these topics. Similarly, Wikipedia has articles on flat-earthism, white power, black power, and phrenology, not out of endorsement for their ideas but because they are encyclopedic topics. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:58, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::These articles - most of them - go well beyond just reporting that these topics exist, to making blanket statements and assumptions in support of them. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 06:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Redirect ==
Is there a reason the Wikipedia entry redirects to the Example of Bias page? I could have sworn there were two separate articles yesterday. And if this is done for a reason, it might be helpful to remove the links within the Bias page that link to itself through the wikipedia page. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:The entry got deleted, redirected and protected a few hours ago. I'll just quote from [[User_Talk:Aschlafly|Aschlafly's Talk page]], where I asked about this:
<div style="border: 1px dashed rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 5px;">We don't need two separate entries about Wikipedia and its bias. The protection was required because people were putting in false statements like non-Americans are more intelligent and Conservapedia should be criticized (for its free speech?). The entry became a place for Wikipedians to spread more falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)</div>
:There is much I want to say in reply to this, but at best, it wouldn't change his mind, and at worst, it would get me banned. Let's just smile and nod, it takes less energy than fighting a lost fight. *shrugs* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Thanks for pointing that out. But in response to [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s reason, couldn't the wikipedia article be an article about wikipedia, not it's bias? like starting date, multiple languages, etc and the Bias page be used for the bias info? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: OK, that's a good idea. I'll reopen the page for factual information like what you suggest. We could all benefit from that. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Renaissance's Inspiration? ==

I would like to dispute item 4 on the list of examples of bias. It is stated that the Renaissance was primarily inspired by Christianity. This is not the case, however; the Renaissance was a return to the values, ideas, and artistic style of pre-Christian times, specifically those of classical Greece.

== My response ==

I'm just listing what I think of these.

# So? If you were a Jew, would you be offended for people not using the Hebrew calendar? And how does wikipedia not give credit to christianity 
# How is this bias? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... having an entry on it isnt bias. It does not support or oppose anti-racist mathematics.
# Again, how is this bias? It says specifically that a small number of people believe this, and is cited well. And saying that 'no credible historian makes such a claim' is both false and biased.
# There are alot of Renaissances. Look at wikipedia's article on 'Italian Renaissance'. Christianity is credited on that article.
# Why is this still here? I think its been discussed on the talk page.
# How does it read 'like a brochure for the abortion industry'?
#
# Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias, does not include articles that are insignificant. Conservapedia only recently became famous; therefore, in response to publicity, the entry was created. It makes sense. And although wikipedia's article may include 'obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements', I could say the same for this article as well. And even if it does have out-of-date citations, why are you using them in all of the 'Wikipedia later removed this error' examples?
#
# There is no point of view. It states the opinions of others; it does not say 'JPandS is an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.'
# 'Out of date.'
# Using 'foreign' spellings is not bias.
# The article on Benjamin Franklin says 'A few years later, Franklin repudiated his 1725 pamphlet as an embarrassing "erratum".' Another out of date citation?
# How can you distort and omit facts at the same time? And if those are true, then that would be an error, not bias.
# How is that gossip? A famous person becoming injured isnt gossip. Would you consider Dick Cheney shooting somebody with a shotgun gossip?

Ill stop here. Feel free to respond ><

::I'll respond, I agree completely, Conservapedia is searching for Biases in Wikipedia to justify its existance. And doing so very poorly I might add. If I wasn't lazy, I'd respond with a paragraph for every single point on their and how ridiculously stupid it is. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:19, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Toronto Evening Star and Statistics ==
The Toronto evening star apparently liked the statement that wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public. Mathematically flawed arguments in the ''bias article'' are like giving freebies to the liberals. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 22:00 (AEST)

== Liberal Wikipedians as compared to conservative Wikipedians ==

The referenced links only represent an extremely small percentage of Wikipedia's total membership. This really invalidates it, and I would remove that particular point if I didn't fear the consequences. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fear not, you couldn't remove it anyway: The article is protected. And this issue has been mentioned a few times by now, with the most prominent one (in my eyes) being in [[#We need to decide what this list is|We need to decide what this list is]]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, all polls or sample sizes are "an extremely small percentage" of the population. That does not make it invalid.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: It does. The Harris poll was contained from a statistical significant sample of 6,000 people, and the results were weighted for sex, education, age, etc to have the outcome match the general population. Also, it had 3 possible answers: conservative, moderate, liberal.

:::The wikipedia numbers are based on a selfselected sample of about 300 people who felt like putting political orientation into their profile. This sample is unlikely to be representative for the 3.8 million wikipedians. Even if your guts tell you that a rate 3 to 1 liberal is close to reality. Its your guts that say this, because these numbers don't prove anything. These numbers are not corrected for age, sex, education. And there are only two choices: liberal, and conservative (in contrast to 3). And the way you compute with fractions is even fundamentally flawed, even if the numbers were right and significant, but that a different issue altogether.

:::: No, the sample is not merely 300 people in the Wikipedia. It's thousands, or millions, of which well over 300 people responded. It is MORE reliable than a poll that only contacts a few hundred people. The Wikipedia survey is like an election, where people have the option of voting or not voting. That is MORE accurate than a telephone poll that does not expressly give people that option.

:::::: So, thousands particpated in this polls, at least? If not millions? Cool, say it is 1000. Then, according to the wikipedia numbers about 20% of all editors are liberal, which is within the margin of error of the Harris poll, which states that 18% of all Americans are liberal. If it were possible to do statistics with these numbers. --[[User:Order|Order]] 19:03, 14 March 2007 (AEST)

:::::''What survey?'' Nowhere on Wikipedia does ANYBODY go all "Hey, if you like, you can add these silly labels to your userpage!". Few people know of this category, fewer people are Americans who these labels apply to, even fewer people care enough about them. Jimmy Wales himself said that he discourages these things, so EVEN fewer people will slap one of those things onto their pages. Your "survey" is like me setting up a poll on a site somewhere and then not advertising it. My sample size automatically becomes "All users of the Internet", and that makes it a valid survey. If just ten people reply, it won't matter since millions of people participated - they just chose not to take the poll.
:::::Look, I know you're very proud of this claim, but let it go. You have no basis for stating that Wikipedia is more of ANYTHING. These things are no poll, no survey, no anything. You've had your fun, the press in one or two countries at least made fun of it, but that's it. Keeping it in will only show that you're stubborn even in the face of people openly mocking it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 22:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Since this is the only '''bold''' statement in the entire article on bias in Wikipedia, it better be right. However, it is wrong on so many levels. The only thing that speaks for it that it coincides with your gut feeling. It is a gift to any liberal who wants to ridicule Conservapedia and its editors. Its like starting a football match and giving away penalty kicks to the opponents. --[[User:Order|Order]] 10:03, 14 March 2007 (AEST)

:::: This debate illustrates how the problem is more than the fact that Wikipedia is liberal. It is that Wikipedians won't admit they are liberal. That's what makes Conservapedia so much better. We're up-front about our point-of-view. Liberal Wikipedians pretend they are not liberal, when they are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: Sorry to be so blunt, but this is just a weasel statement, because you won't admit that you used bad statistics combined with poor fractional math. If wikipedia is so secretive to not provide any good numbers, then don't use their numbers. There are many good points you could make, but this is not one of them. Its a godsend for the liberals. --[[User:Order|Order]] 15:03, 14 March 2007 (AEST)

:::::: Agreed. This is a real black-eye on Conservapedia on several fronts: 1) the "poll" of Wikipedians is self-selected... in the business of polling, that discounts it as useless up-front 2) this is an informal element of Wikipedia, which [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Wikipedians_by_Politics_I Wikipedia itself is attempting to remove] (and such removal efforts have continued in various forms for years) because of its divisiveness 3) there's no correlation drawn between this self-selected data and the actual extent to which people contribute to Wikipedia... it's entirely possible that there's weighting here that renders the ''implication'' incorrect, even if the data were correct. There are some good criticisms on this list, and it really doesn't need this one that makes the rest look bad. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 14:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Agreed. This is a real black-eye on Conservapedia on several fronts: 1) the "poll" of Wikipedians is self-selected... in the business of polling, that discounts it as useless up-front 2) this is an informal element of Wikipedia, which [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Wikipedians_by_Politics_I Wikipedia itself is attempting to remove] (and such removal efforts have continued in various forms for years) because of its divisiveness 3) there's no correlation drawn between this self-selected data and the actual extent to which people contribute to Wikipedia... it's entirely possible that there's weighting here that renders the ''implication'' incorrect, even if the data were correct. There are some good criticisms on this list, and it really doesn't need this one that makes the rest look bad. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 14:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

One must admit, it gives a bad impression to any visitor - and this is where many are going to be pointed. If nothing else, of the articles I've looked up, this one is the longest by far, clearly representing the most effort - to have it ''obviously inaccurate'' gives an even worse impression.

If twice as many Americans identify Conservative as opposed to Liberal, that's a 2:1 ratio. 1/3rd (33%) of Americans would therefore be Liberal. If thrice as many Wikipedians identify as Liberal, it's a 3:1 ratio. 3/4ths (75%) of Wikipedians would be liberal. This is fourth grade math.

: If you look at the poll numbers you will find that only 18% are liberal, 34% conservative, and 40% moderate. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] forgot about the moderates in his calculation. Yet another self-inflicted black-eye. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16:03, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

It's actually therefore only 225% as Liberal by volume, just over '''twice''' as liberal. Nowhere ''near'' six times. All this aside from the unreliability of the Wikipedia "Poll". Frankly, to use these user tags is even less accurate than counting bumper stickers on your daily commute insofar as statistical accuracy is concerned. In fact, given the contention here that Wikipedia is, in fact, biased, doesn't it ''stand to reason'' that conservative editors would be less likely to make a point of their political leanings, to avoid the hypothetical consequences? This would skew the data even further. [[User:Sondergard|Sondergard]]

== How are we supposed to contribute? ==

You say to contribute to the page, yet how, if it is locked to prevent editing?
:Post here and a mod will add it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:33, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you're talking about the kangaroo page, I locked it because an edit war with some guy who kept posting that creationism was stupid was tying my hands up. I didn't have time to explain it at the time. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely locking a page for reasons other than vandalism is detrimental to the whole point of wiki software. --[[User:Dezza91|Dezza91]] 03:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Examples of Bias in Conservapedia… ==

would be an ''excellent'' article. It could explicitly mention Examples of Bias in Wikipedia, rant about undetected vandalism and inaccuracies, and generally appear juvenile, irrational, and anti-intellectual. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 16:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== New Jersey bias in Wikipedia ==

247 Wikipedians self-identify as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedians_in_New_Jersey&until=User+New+Jersey Wikipedians in New Jersey]. 196 self-identify as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Pennsylvania Wikipedians in Pennsylvania]. The ratio of New Jerseyan to Pennsylvanians on Wikipedia is 5:4. But according to a poll conducted by the U. S. Census Bureau, the number of people living in New Jersey is 8,414,350, while the number living in Pennsylvania is 12,281,054, a ratio of 2:3. (5/4) / (2/3) = 1.875, leading to the conclusion that

Wikipedia is 87.5% more New Jerseyan than America as a whole.

Critics charge that New Jersey bias is pervasive throughout Wikipedia.

*Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheesesteak Cheesesteak] alleges that the rolls used by Pat's Steaks in Philadelphia are made by a bakery in Glassboro, New Jersey.

*Due to the mob rule of New Jerseyans, a wildly disportionate amount of Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Island#Relationship_to_New_York_and_New_Jersey Liberty Island] is devoted to insanely exaggerated claims of New Jersey boosters, including false assertions that its proper street address is One Communipaw Avenue, Jersey City; that maps show it as being on the New Jersey side of the New York/New Jersey boundary; and that it is much closer to Jersey City than it is to New York. [[User:dpbsmith|dpbsmith's evil twin]] 09:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::But the Statue of Liberty '''is''' closer to Jersey City than it is to New York. [[User:dpbsmith|dpbsmith's sockpuppet]] 09:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''They've infiltrated here, too???!''' [[User:dpbsmith|dpbsmith's evil twin]] 09:02, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: This New Jersy bias is interesting. Lets see what other categories we have... --[[User:Order|Order]] 16 March 2007, 2:00 (AEST)

== Wikipedia biased towards Erdős ==
Three mathematicians on Wikipedia have an Erdős number of 1 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_with_Erd%C5%91s_number_1 Wikipedians with Erdős number 1]). These are co-authors of [[Paul Erdős| Erdős]]. It has 7 with an Erdős number of 5 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_with_Erd%C5%91s_number_5 Wikipedians with Erdős number 5]). These are coauthors, of coauthors, of coauthors, of coauthors, of coauthors of Erdős. The average mathematician has an Erdős number of 5. This results in a ratio of 3/7 for coauthors of Erdős vs average mathematicians on Wikipedia.

According to the Erdős number project [http://www.oakland.edu/enp/trivia.html] there are however worldwide an estimated number of 504 mathematicians with an Erdős number of 1, and an estimated 87760 with an Erdős number of 5. This gives a ratio of about 1/175 for coauthors vs average mathematicians. This means there are about '''75 times''' as many coauthors of Erdős on Wikipedia, than there are among mathematicians.

Conservapedia in contrast has an estimated number of zero coauthors of Erdős among its ranks, while there are lot of very average mathematicians. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16 March 2007, 2:00 (AEST)

: Ha, ha, very funny. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Question about point 4.'''

I note that point four states: "Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration."

Dare I point out that the same could be said for the conservapedia article?

--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia about twice as non religious as Americans ==

Polls show that about twice as many Wikipedias (35% in 2006) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion identify themselves as non religious compared with Americans. (19% ib 2001) http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

::I have said this so many times it's getting boring. Who cares how many Wikipedians are using Wikipedia as apposed to Americans? Wikipedia is a GLOBAL source. Edited by GLOBAL users, who all are supposed to be submitting factual information or for controversial subjects, both possible sides (or all possible sides if more than two). So no-matter what, the end-result on Wikipedia, after it is editted by its PAYED professionals and experts, is factual information and non-biased articles. Wikipedia, and any other site should not have to cater to the religious just because there are more of them in America. There are other countries too, and nobody is attempting to cater to them. There are other points of view, but nobody is catering to them. Facts are facts are facts, they remain the same whether they support religious claims or not. 100% of America could be Creationists, yet Wikipedia would still show every possible side of things, not ONLY the creationist part, if you understand what I mean. Every statistic that is used to try and show that Wikipedia has biased is 100% irrelevant in every way.--[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Personally, I like Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is pretty good and reasonably free from bias... but, WIkipedia is '''not, not, not''' edited by "paid professionals" or by "experts." This is something that every Wikipedia user needs to understand. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is edited by anyone who feels like it, but they do hire professionals and experts to read the pages (obviously not all of them, but the more popular ones) to try and make it less biased, more factual, and include more sources. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

: Did you take actually alook at the page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion, other than scrolling to the end and squiting at the statistics? It starts right away by sayin that this is a self selected sample. And it is a small sample. And it contains the weirdest categories. And the page again says that the statitics are merely for entertainment, and not to be taken seriously. Its a joke. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16 March 2007 10:50 (AEST)

== Six times? Not even close. ==

I can't believe that an economics teacher could make these kinds of mistakes with basic statistical procedure. If Wikipedia were six times more liberal than 18%, it would be an impossible 108% liberal. Even assuming that 75% of Wikipedians consider themselves liberals (which, given that many people consider themselves neither liberal nor conservative, is ridiculous), 75/18 would give us a figure of roughly four times more liberal than the American public. (Not to say that that's the correct procedure.)

Regardless of the math, we must remember the stat teacher's old chestnut, "Garbage in, garbage out." Bad data gives bad results. The data from Wikipedia is based on voluntary response samples, which are notoriously prone to bias. (Remember Alf Landon and the ''Literary Digest'' poll?) The six times figure can only be attributed to serious mathematical error or intellectual dishonesty. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 21:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

In fact, with the data provided, the correct suggested figure would be '''2.25 times as liberal''', not 6 times. Let (AC,AL) be the percentage of conservatives and liberals respectively of all Americans and (WC,WL) the and = ratio for Wikipedia editors. Since these are probabilities, AC + AL = WC + WL = 1. Then the ratio of liberal Wikipedia editors to liberal Americans is WL/AL = ((WL/(WC + WL))/(AL/(AC + AL))) = (1/(WC/WL + 1))/(1/(AC/AL + 1)) = (AC/AL + 1)/(WC/WL + 1). Since the suggested ratios are AC/AL = 2 and WC/WL = 1/3, then WL/AL = (2 + 1)/(1/3 + 1) = 3/(4/3) = 9/4 = 2.25. [[User:Hdelbrook|Hdelbrook]] 21:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

: John Brown's mistake is that the term "liberal" applies to the overall concentration, such that halving the number of conservatives can also double the liberal bias. HdelBrook's error is that he assumes everyone is either liberal or conservative. My cited sources clearly show that not to be case.

: More interesting is how liberals deny their bias. Any guess as to whether the above two commentators are themselves liberal??? Notice how they don't disclose their own view. Conservapedia discloses its point-of-view, but Wikipedia denies its.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So... if 98% of the population were moderate, 1% liberal, and 1% conservative, you would contend that, in fact, it had a 99% liberal bias? The classic "Those who are not '''with''' us are '''against''' us? I think most would contend that the introduction of moderates would bring discussion closer to the ''center'', not automatically push it to either fringe.

:: Or is there perhaps a more logical, mathematical way to construct the "6 times" figure that you could explain to the multitude of us who have arrived at 225% instead? Both HdelBrook and I used mathematical explanations based on the most generous basic situation. If you'd like to dismiss our arguments, the simplest method is to provide an actual counterargument - in this case, just show your math. You don't need to attack the opposing arguments, just defend your own. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]] (who considers himself largely moderate, in the interest of full disclosure)

Sorry, I forgot to disclose my view. I believe that committing math errors is a display of ignorance, not of conservatism. [[User:Hdelbrook|Hdelbrook]] 21:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[Aschlafly]] that if there is a third category (WC + WL + WU) for WU = neither conservative nor liberal, then there is clearly not enough data provided to form any conclusion. [[User:Hdelbrook|Hdelbrook]] 22:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:My apologies: I am a registered Republican, and consider myself a moderate. More to the point, you cannot possibly defend the six times figure. I will be glad to argue the finer points of statistics and politics another day, but right now, I simply ask you to admit that your numbers are incorrect. It happens. We're all human. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 22:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Oh, and while we're at it, here's some (still voluntary response-based!) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Moderate_Wikipedians data] for the third category. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 22:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A bit more can be said when there are moderates '''if we accept as input data''' the assertion that WL/AL = 6 (it does not follow from the other input data). Then WL/AL = ((WL/(WC+WL+WM))/((AL/(AC+AL+AM)) = (2 + 1 + AM/AL)/(1/3 + 1 + WM/WL) = (3 + AM/AL)/(4/3 + WM/WL) = 6, the the lower bound on AM/AL is when WM = 0, so (3 + AM/AL)/(4/3) = 6, so 3 + AM/AL = 8, so AM/AL = 5. The data presented support the conclusion that there are at least 5 times as many moderate Americans as liberal Americans. [[User:Hdelbrook|Hdelbrook]] 22:21, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, what fractional reduction in liberals on Wikipedia would give it a balance comparable to the American public, which is 2:1 conservative? Answer: 1/6 reduction in Wikipedia liberals would be necessary. Ergo, Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.

: But again, more interesting is why Wikipedians and yourselves won't simply admit your socially liberal views? Why conceal that?

: John Brown, did you revert your improper removal of information in the France entry???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::You seem to be confusing yourself by using ratio notation instead of fractions or decimals. If 3/4 of Wikipedians are Liberal, and we want to get it down to the same as the American public, 1/3, then we need to reduce the number of Liberals by, as has been said many times now, (3/4) / (1/3), which is 1/(2.25).
::Edit: Just realised that the number of Liberals is 18%, not 1/3, so this gives a figure of about 4 (as was also mentioned before), still nowhere near 6. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 22:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

"Deny their bias"? By the standards of the modern-day Republican party, [[Richard Nixon]] would be considered a snivelling Liberal. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 23:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Yeah, everyone should just announce their political orientations every time they want to talk, just to avoid denial of liberal bias. And, in response to how Wikipedia denies their POV, of course Wikipedia doesnt have a point of view. Its an encyclopedia. And not all Wikipedians are liberal. And you blocked me for vandalism. Or accidentally messing up some formatting. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 23:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Only a fool denies the obvious. [[Aschlafly]] has made a fool of me by leading me to believe that this was actually a forum where conservatives could actually learn from each other. Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. My mother-in-law said that you should never try to teach a pig math, it wastes your time and annoys the pig. No matter how many times you say that 1 + 1 = 3, it just ain't so. I don't care if Bill Clinton says it, you say it, or God Himself says it, it's false. (OK, maybe if God says it, but you're not God!) You give conservatives a bad name, and I for one am not willing to let you turn those of us with horse-sense into people with the sense of a horse. It's pretty clear that we can all talk ourselves blue in the discussion page, but not word of the article page is going to change. I can just hear Liberals laughing at how conservatives are stupid hicks who are bad at math. Well I'm here to tell you that you don't speak for me. Oh yeah, I know you're going to call me a Liberal. Don't bother. I looked up Liberal in the Conservadictionary and it means "anyone who disagrees with me". It's funny how liberal you think the editors (plural) at Wikipedia are. Funny thing is, there seems to be only one editor at Conservapedia. How power corrupts. The sad part is, I actually had high hopes for Conservapedia. I'm outta here. Let the namecalling begin... [[User:Hdelbrook|Hdelbrook]] 02:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

For the record I am a left of center moderate. Although I certainly don’t consider myself a math whiz, my background in math includes algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus and a semester of statistics. So when I read the reasons presented by those who challenged the validity of the “6 times more liberal “claim I agree with their arguments based on my knowledge of math. Please note, it’s not based on my political views. Math is neither liberal nor conservative, it’s just math.

I am not going to rehash the arguments here, that’s been done enough, but I have a suggestion to solve this impasse. I’m not sure exactly how we can arrange this; maybe someone can offer some ideas.

I suggest we submit this to binding arbitration. We could find a qualified mathematician. Then Aschlafly could submit a statement explaining his method of obtaining his “6 times” figure. His challengers could submit a statement explaining why they think the “6 times” figure is in error. Then the mathematician could analyze the problem and give their opinion. That opinion would be binding, thus resolving this disagreement.

We would have to find a mathematician that both sides would trust. I suppose it would have to be a conservative mathematician since Aschafly doesn’t seem to trust anyone who isn’t conservative.

Although this “binding arbitration” method wouldn’t work for most disagreements, it could work for this situation because it’s not subjective, it’s just math. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 12:27, 16 March 2007 (PDT)

:''...Then Aschlafly could submit a statement explaining his method of obtaining his “6 times” figure...''
::Just that would be a start. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm fine with choosing some mutually agreed-upon mathematicians to estimate how much greater Wikipedia's liberal bias is than the American public. It wouldn't surprise me if the mathematicians conclude that I have understated Wikipedia's liberal bias.

: By the way, my estimate is obviously based on this definition of liberal bias: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in the population. Absolute zero thereby corresponds to an absence of any liberals in the population. Heaven can be defined in a similar manner! Ha ha ha.

: If anyone has a different definition of liberal bias for our mediators, speak now or forever hold your peace!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I still say "Get rid of that point". There is just too much wrong with it, even ignoring the math behind that "six times" bit. First of all, the "than the American public" bit shows a good deal of narrow-mindedness. As I mentioned elsewhere, Americans aren't even the majority of all people who visit Wikipedia. They only form roughly 38% of all en.wikipedia traffic ([http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=wikipedia.org/ Current stats]: 54% of all visitors go to en.wiki, 20.7% of all visitors are from the US, meaning that - if ''all'' US traffic goes to en.wiki - Americans form 20.7/54 = 38.33% on en.wiki). Sure, America has the largest single-country share, but that's it. It would be an EXTREME coincidence if Wikipedia reflected America. Not even to mention all the bits about sample size and the fact that few know of these categories. Wikipedia is an international site. Just accept it.
::And any "proper" method to determine how liberally biased Wikipedia is would assume that you can actually map all other countries' political alignments into your "liberal or conservative" system (not even to mention polling them). Which is kinda hard (or trivially easy, depending on how you look at it) when you factor in the definition of "conservative" some people use here (pro-Christianity, pro-Creationism, pro-America).
::But even leaving out ALL math and ALL technical arguments... this site gets openly mocked for this statement (among other things), even in other countries. And I'm not just talking about blogs here. Assuming that this site isn't just one of Colbert's jokes, I think that you want it to be taken seriously. To get there, you should react to the repeated criticism. Both to the input from external sources and the editors. Labeling every critic as liberal won't get you far.
::However, if your aim is to be taken seriously only by other pro-Christian, creationist conservatives, then leave it in. If that's your goal, you're on the right way. As an additional bonus, you can praise yourself for entertaining more people than you supply with information. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::'By the way, my estimate is obviously based on this definition of liberal bias: the ratio of liberals to conservatives in the population. Absolute zero thereby corresponds to an absence of any liberals in the population.'

::So, by your stated definition, a population evenly divided into Liberal and conservative (1:1) has 50% liberal bias. The population of the united states has (2:1) 33.33...% liberal bias. The population of wikipedia has (1:3) 75% liberal bias. Which is roughly '''2.25 times as much'''. Which is what everyone has been arguing to you in this discussion.

::'Heaven can be defined in a similar manner! Ha ha ha.'

::I don't feel the need to explain why this comment alone will get you ignored by anyone who doesn't already agree with you - and how offensive it can be to Christians who actually believe in a compassionate, forgiving Lord. I'll just point out that if it really were your purpose to convince people who are undecided, that kind of unnecessary cheap shot defeats your own purpose. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]] (Who, in the interest of full disclosure, '''still''' considers himself a moderate - which apparently means he has a 50% liberal bias)

==Figured you'd find this interesting==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karmafist/Wikipedians%27_Political_Perspectives A survey of Wikipedian's poltical perspectives]. I did a study awhile back, and it showed that Wikipedia does have a liberal bias.

Feel free to block me or whatever you people do. Looking at the comments above, I assume that is the norm here, but I figured i'd share this since Wikipedia is a serious threat to the honest discourse of information and every little bit against them helps.

P.S- For the sake of disclosure, I am the chairman of the town Democratic committee in Merrimack, New Hampshire. Even if I don't agree with you (which seems likely), I will try my best to listen because civil, open and honest debate and deliberation is necessary for a healthy democracy, something we have been losing as a society. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 04:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

: Why would anybody want to block you? For your study into the political perspectives of Wikipedians? If you take a look at your site you see that it contains of results for a selfselected group of about 20 Wikipedians who bother to take the test that you offered. The fact that the test might be respectable, doesn't change much. To turn this into a respectable study you need about 100 times as many respndents, and you need to know some basic hard facts about the 3.8 million wikipedians. Like where they live, how old old they are, their sex, and correlation between thee. Then you have to weigh your results for these demographic factors. Your study has a long way to go. --[[User:Order|Order]] 16 March, 10:10 (AEST)

Karmafist, I'd like to include your survey of Wikipedia bias as a point in the content page, with a link to your work. But first, could you draw some conclusions about the meaning of the numbers? Do they relate to a standard deviation or have other significance?

Increasingly I'm getting interesting in how Wikipedian liberals ''deny'' that they're liberals. On this page alone there are numerous comments by Wikipedia defenders, most of whom are likely socially liberal, yet none of them seem willing to admit it. And on Karmafist's page, one Wikipedian notes how Wikipedians are generally "left on economic issues, libertarian on social issues." I chuckled at that artful avoidance of saying "liberal".

Funny, conservatives don't try to conceal their ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd be interested to know where you fall on that scatter-plot, Mr. Schlafly, if you wanted to share. I'm not sure if you're familiar with it or not, but the test is available at politicalcompass.org.
:: You made a mistake in mathematics, using obscure numbers. And you are unable to see that some of just want to prevent that Conservapedia and its editors look like fools, because they don't know how to do statistics. You don't solve this by calling anybody ''liberal''. Or did you call your math teacher also ''liberal'' when he pointed you to a mistake you made. You are just feeding the liberal trolls with this behavior. It has been said over and over again. Your list on bias is better and stronger without this point.

:: But as I said at another place, I do understand why you have to stick to this claim about the six times more liberal because ti became kind of the slogan of this site. Even in the NPR interview your very first point was "Wikipedia has a liberal bias that is about six times greater than the level of liberal bias in the American public, according to studies that we've done." Now that you made this claim prominently on National radio you probably feel like you cannot withdraw it anymore.-- [[User:Order|Order]] 17 March 2007, 12:45 (AEST)

:Quote-mining, much?
{{QuoteBox|The sample is self-selected, and Karmafist identifies himself as a Democrat and has occasionally clashed with Wikipedia authority. So my guess is that the general Wikipedia contributor population isn't quite as skewed as the graph suggests. But if there's any skew in the general Wiki population, it probably lies in this direction: left on economic issues, libertarian on social issues.}}
:Funny how you magically leave out all the parts about "probably", "isn't quite as skewed" and so on. But whatever. You like numbers when they say what you want. I can't wait to see how you phrase this on the Bias page, it should be highly entertaining :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:46, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-16T20:21:40Z

Romney4king: /* No */

== No ==
In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[Nationao Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association|NOAA]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, after the last several winters have been cold, harsh, snowy, occasioned great expense for snow clearance and equally great property damage from traffic accidents, froze people to death and caused other people to die in two-ton metal coffins. When you're comparing it to the Blizzard of 1996, or the Eighteen Storms of Jersey in the 1993-4 winter--well, frankly we could use another 1.3 degrees of warmth.
::Tell you what, neighbor: let's trade homes. You come here to New Jersey and put yourself in the deep freeze, and I'll move out to wherever you are and thaw out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm from Minnesota. I doubt I'd mind. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 09:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Then what in the name of Jack Frost are you complaining about?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Complaining? You were complaining about how hard your winter is, and issued the challenge that I would not hold the opinion I do if I lived somewhere cold. I answered that I have, in fact, lived somewhere cold and I still think global warming is a huge problem. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Then your position is a total [[non sequitur]]. How can you say the globe is warming when your own thermometer tells you that it's still cold? How can you say that the globe is warming when ''three conferences'' called by global-warming alarmists had to be canceled because of snow and ice? How can you say that the globe is warming, when a North Pole expedition, looking for "evidence," had to turn back because one of the expeditionaries came down with frostbite? This whole debate gets more ridiculous with every passing week.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: You assert that you know something about logic, so I think that you are aware that this whole argument is based on the logical fallacies of [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] and [[misleading vividness]]. Climate change does not mean that people are going to immediately stop getting frostbite when they make expeditions to the North Pole.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::By that same token, then, no one has shown that tomorrow the forests of Southern [[California]] are going to go up in smoke, or that [[San Francisco]] is going to slip into the sea, or that [[Key West]] is going to wash away. And before you say that "nobody ever said that," I say that they have. One point three degrees. ''So what???'' Again, it's still not as warm as some other winters we used to have in [[New Jersey]]. We got unprecedented snow in 1993-4, and before then, we hardly ever had three feet of snow to fall in one day. Global warming? Hah! Global ''cooling'' was more like it.
:::::::::And another thing: we haven't discussed a little item such as the finding of polar ice melts on [[Mars]]. Now are you going to claim that we are somehow fouling up the climate on Mars, too?
:::::::::All that's happening is that the sunspots are a little more active. This, too, shall pass. And when it does, you can ice yourself down again, just as you were used to doing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::: We're almost off the page at this point, so this'll be my last response, and you can have the final word.
::::::::::1.3 degrees (by the way, are you refering to how much it has changed so far, or projected change?) may not sound like much, but it does have a big effect. Example: during the last major ice age, when glaciers covered as far south as Ohio, the temperature was only 9 degrees different than it is now. You can cite cases of people getting frostbite at the North Pole and all sorts of other [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] logical fallacies, but you still haven't attempted to come up with a coherent argument disputing the basic premises of the case for climate change: 1. Burning fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide. 2. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 16:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Unfortunately, we are at the sunspot minimum of the cycle rather than the maximum. [http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html] and [http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14oct99_1.htm] for more on the sunspot count. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ). Essentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal ammount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I've heard that excuse many times before. Gore buys "clean energy offsets" from a company he owns, and one that, furthermore, won't sell to anyoone else. So if you think I'm attacking him, of course I am--for hypocrisy and mendacity. About the only good that might come out of this is the development of certain techniques that might--I say again, might--prove valuable for reasons ''other than'' this false climate alarm.

:::But if Gore were at all serious, then he would turn his home into a showcase home for conversation, as [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] did.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: You're saying that Al Gore owns the Nashville Electrical service, where he gets his electricity [http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx]? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::He owns this Global Initiatives outfit where he buys his "carbon offsets," like planting trees. That's what I mean by buying carbon offsets from himself.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: So, he pays his energy bill to a company that he doesn't own, then spends additional money to offset his carbon output by creating wind and solar power and planting trees. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

== References ==
<references/>

Archaeopteryx

2007-03-16T20:04:11Z

Romney4king: Stylistic; created more objective tone in last paragraph

[[Image:archaeopteryx.png|right|Archaeopteryx fossil]]

'''Archaeopteryx''' is known from 10 specimens, including several complete, articulated specimens. It is often presented as evidence of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of [[reptile | reptiles]] including teeth and incomplete evolution of the wing structure, making it appear to be a transitional form between reptiles and birds.

The criticism of the Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of Creationist anatomist Dr. David Menton[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp] suggesting that Archaeopteryx was a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all.

In 1993, an article was published in Science magazine arguing that the Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings<ref>A. Feduccia, "Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx," Science, 259(5096):790-793, February 5, 1993.</ref>

While most Darwinist scientists agree that the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx were essentially modern, several papers since have refuted Feduccia's claims about the anatomy of Archaeopteryx<ref>"The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx," Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 149:97-116, 2007.</ref> Specimens such as the Thermoplis Specimen <ref>www.wyodino.org</ref> are thought to clearly show that the arms, wishbone, tail, feet, hips, and palate of Archaeopteryx were more like meat-eating theropod dinosaurs than modern birds.

In 1994, a Christian publication stated that the brain of an Archaeopteryx was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The artilce argued that the fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref>D. Mentonand C. Wieland, "Bird Evolution Flies out the window," Creation Ex Nihilo, 16(4):16-19, September-November 1994.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1201_051201_archaeopteryx.html

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-16T19:05:51Z

Romney4king: /* No */

== No ==
In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[Nationao Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association|NOAA]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, after the last several winters have been cold, harsh, snowy, occasioned great expense for snow clearance and equally great property damage from traffic accidents, froze people to death and caused other people to die in two-ton metal coffins. When you're comparing it to the Blizzard of 1996, or the Eighteen Storms of Jersey in the 1993-4 winter--well, frankly we could use another 1.3 degrees of warmth.
::Tell you what, neighbor: let's trade homes. You come here to New Jersey and put yourself in the deep freeze, and I'll move out to wherever you are and thaw out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm from Minnesota. I doubt I'd mind. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 09:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Then what in the name of Jack Frost are you complaining about?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Complaining? You were complaining about how hard your winter is, and issued the challenge that I would not hold the opinion I do if I lived somewhere cold. I answered that I have, in fact, lived somewhere cold and I still think global warming is a huge problem. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Then your position is a total [[non sequitur]]. How can you say the globe is warming when your own thermometer tells you that it's still cold? How can you say that the globe is warming when ''three conferences'' called by global-warming alarmists had to be canceled because of snow and ice? How can you say that the globe is warming, when a North Pole expedition, looking for "evidence," had to turn back because one of the expeditionaries came down with frostbite? This whole debate gets more ridiculous with every passing week.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: You assert that you know something about logic, so I think that you are aware that this whole argument is based on the logical fallacies of [[Logical fallacy#Proving_too_much|proving too much]] and [[misleading vividness]]. Climate change does not mean that people are going to immediately stop getting frostbite when they make expeditions to the North Pole.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ). Essentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal ammount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I've heard that excuse many times before. Gore buys "clean energy offsets" from a company he owns, and one that, furthermore, won't sell to anyoone else. So if you think I'm attacking him, of course I am--for hypocrisy and mendacity. About the only good that might come out of this is the development of certain techniques that might--I say again, might--prove valuable for reasons ''other than'' this false climate alarm.

:::But if Gore were at all serious, then he would turn his home into a showcase home for conversation, as [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] did.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: You're saying that Al Gore owns the Nashville Electrical service, where he gets his electricity [http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx]? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::He owns this Global Initiatives outfit where he buys his "carbon offsets," like planting trees. That's what I mean by buying carbon offsets from himself.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::: So, he pays his energy bill to a company that he doesn't own, then spends additional money to offset his carbon output by creating wind and solar power and planting trees. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-16T17:53:31Z

Romney4king: /* No */

== No ==
In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[Nationao Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association|NOAA]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, after the last several winters have been cold, harsh, snowy, occasioned great expense for snow clearance and equally great property damage from traffic accidents, froze people to death and caused other people to die in two-ton metal coffins. When you're comparing it to the Blizzard of 1996, or the Eighteen Storms of Jersey in the 1993-4 winter--well, frankly we could use another 1.3 degrees of warmth.
::Tell you what, neighbor: let's trade homes. You come here to New Jersey and put yourself in the deep freeze, and I'll move out to wherever you are and thaw out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm from Minnesota. I doubt I'd mind. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 09:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Then what in the name of Jack Frost are you complaining about?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Complaining? You were complaining about how hard your winter is, and issued the challenge that I would not hold the opinion I do if I lived somewhere cold. I answered that I have, in fact, lived somewhere cold and I still think global warming is a huge problem. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Anecdotal evidence aside, the climate models that claim to predict global warming are at best flawed, and at worst deliberately skewed.

{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ). Essentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal ammount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I've heard that excuse many times before. Gore buys "clean energy offsets" from a company he owns, and one that, furthermore, won't sell to anyoone else. So if you think I'm attacking him, of course I am--for hypocrisy and mendacity. About the only good that might come out of this is the development of certain techniques that might--I say again, might--prove valuable for reasons ''other than'' this false climate alarm.

:::But if Gore were at all serious, then he would turn his home into a showcase home for conversation, as [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] did.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: You're saying that Al Gore owns the Nashville Electrical service, where he gets his electricity [http://www.nespower.com/green_power_switch.aspx]? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-16T13:38:43Z

Romney4king: /* No */ response

== No ==
In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[Nationao Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association|NOAA]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, after the last several winters have been cold, harsh, snowy, occasioned great expense for snow clearance and equally great property damage from traffic accidents, froze people to death and caused other people to die in two-ton metal coffins. When you're comparing it to the Blizzard of 1996, or the Eighteen Storms of Jersey in the 1993-4 winter--well, frankly we could use another 1.3 degrees of warmth.
::Tell you what, neighbor: let's trade homes. You come here to New Jersey and put yourself in the deep freeze, and I'll move out to wherever you are and thaw out.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I'm from Minnesota. I doubt I'd mind. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 09:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Anecdotal evidence aside, the climate models that claim to predict global warming are at best flawed, and at worst deliberately skewed.

{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ). Essentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal ammount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I've heard that excuse many times before. Gore buys "clean energy offsets" from a company he owns, and one that, furthermore, won't sell to anyoone else. So if you think I'm attacking him, of course I am--for hypocrisy and mendacity. About the only good that might come out of this is the development of certain techniques that might--I say again, might--prove valuable for reasons ''other than'' this false climate alarm.

:::But if Gore were at all serious, then he would turn his home into a showcase home for conversation, as [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] did.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-16T04:41:58Z

Romney4king: grammar

== No ==
In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[NOAH]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Anecdotal evidence aside, the climate models that claim to predict global warming are at best flawed, and at worst deliberately skewed.

{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ). Essentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal ammount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-16T04:34:17Z

Romney4king: /* No */

== No ==
In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[NOAH]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Anecdotal evidence aside, the climate models that claim to predict global warming are at best flawed, and at worst deliberately skewed.

{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ). Esentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal ammount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-16T04:27:47Z

Romney4king: fixed link, grammar

== No ==
In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[NOAH]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Anecdotal evidence aside, the climate models that claim to predict global warming are at best flawed, and at worst deliberately skewed.

{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}
"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore isn't here to explain himself: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "lean energy". For every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ).--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-16T04:26:30Z

Romney4king: /* No */

== No ==
In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[NOAH]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6456897.stm]. However, I don;t dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Anecdotal evidence aside, the climate models that claim to predict global warming are at best flawed, and at worst deliberately skewed.

"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].
{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore isn't here to explain himself: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "lean energy". For every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ).--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-16T04:25:03Z

Romney4king: responses

== No ==
In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime ([[New Jersey]], [[United States|USA]] that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to [[global warming]] so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

:: Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: [[NOAH]] announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records. However, I don;t dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Anecdotal evidence aside, the climate models that claim to predict global warming are at best flawed, and at worst deliberately skewed.

"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argument from the numbers]]. And when a politician ([[Albert Gore, Jr.]]) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in [[special pleading]].
{{Fallacy|Argumentum ad hominem}}

::Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|Argumentum ad hominem]]. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore isn't here to explain himself: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "lean energy". For every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [http://www.nativeenergy.com] ).--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]].

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a [[sin]]), i.e. the [[People's Republic of China]], are ''exempt'' from the [[Kyoto Protocol]], that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

{{Fallacy|Loaded question}}
{{Fallacy|Special pleading}}

My reply to [[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]]: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the [[Kyoto Protocol]], because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the [[United States]]--that's a [[loaded question]] if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita the CO2 emissions per capita] in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: [[People's Republic of China|China]] is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

:: I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

::: This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:: Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, ''or even sufficient.'' I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental [[hypocrisy]] of [[Albart Gore, Jr.]] and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in [[Belle Meade]], [[Tennessee]]. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have ''not'' shown the harm they do.

:: So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::: As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, [[Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers|argumentum ab numeris]], [[Logical fallacy#Argumentum ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]], and [[non sequitur]]? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ''ipso facto'' equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO2 is a ''lagging'' indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, ''forty'' years ago they were predicting a return of the Big [[Ice Age]].

:::::Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "[[global warming]]", and ''everything'' to do with national security. ''I'' would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt [[Hugo Chavez]] into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the [[Fischer-Tropsch fuel]] process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO2 from the [[atmosphere]]. (That would take a lot of energy--[[nuclear energy]] to be precise--but that would be better than [[carbon sequestration]], which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

::::While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-[[God]] serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the [[France|French]] have done?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all ''in favor'' of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go ''far beyond'' the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, [[Ed Begley, Jr.]] is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. [[Albert Gore Jr.]] certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

::::::But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena.
If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. [[Jwcddd]]

:Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. [[jwcddd]]

:What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their ''behavior'' makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

:Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently
carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence.
But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

:I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

:You're trying to assert that ''res ipsa loquitur''--the thing speaks for itself.

:Well, it doesn't.

:As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

:Over my dead body.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming {{Fallacy|Logical fallacy#Proof by numbers}}

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of [[propaganda]]. Citation needed.{{Unsigned|Intelligent}}

: Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the [[United States Senate]] Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.<ref>[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Heidi Cullen advocates decertification of meteorologists who deny global warming] from the Press Room, Committee on Environment and Public Works, [[United States Senate]]</ref>

: If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

: You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But ''no!'' Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

:I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. ''No one'' has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.
:::: Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term ''Little Ice Age'' mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

:::::Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, ''you owe the world'' a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)<ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm Bush Loves Ecology--At Home] at CommonDreams.org</ref>
::::: The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.
::::::I am not convinced. I see a B-grade [[Hollywood]] [[motion picture]] script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" ''That'' is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.
::::::: But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--[[User:Romney4king|Romney4king]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::You know better than to bring in a citation from [[Wikipedia]]! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

:::We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.[[Robbo|Robbo]]

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Stealth bomber

2007-03-16T03:51:09Z

Romney4king: accuracy...

I'm pretty sure that the F-117A is actually called the "Stealth Fighter", in which case it is mislabled here...

Pig

2007-03-16T02:12:34Z

Romney4king: creating page

A pig is an omnivorous mammal originally native to Europe. Bacon, pork, and ham come from pigs. Pigs have long snouts with flattened ends, curly tails, and are typically pink in appearance.

Footballs are traditionally made from a pig's skin.

== Biblical View ==
By rule of the Book of Leviticus, eating pigs or even handling their hide is an abomination. , "...the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7-11:8).

Slavery

2007-03-16T02:06:36Z

Romney4king: /* Slavery in the Bible */

Slavery is ownership of one person by another. The master controls and commands the slave, either through ownership of the slave like property, or by right to command him.

== Ancient History ==

Slavery has existed at least since ancient [[Greece]] and ancient [[Egypt]], where Hebrews were slaves. The primary slave market in ancient Greece was on an island in the Aegean sea known as "Delos". From there slaves were traded and used throughout the Greek city-states.

Often prisoners-of-wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among [[Arabs]].

==Recent History==

In 1455, a "papal bull" (formal letter by the [[pope]]) justified a "right" of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The [[Spain|Spanish]] had already been enslaving [[South America|South American]] natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of [[Africa|African]] slaves were brought by the Spanish and [[Portugal|Portuguese]] to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The growth of [[sugar]]—which had first been introduced to [[Europe]] when the [[Muslims]] ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon [[France]], the Netherlands and Great Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white plantation owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

Slavery was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of "chattel" slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the "Triangular Trade" between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the "triangle" of trade.

==End of Slavery==

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when Christian reformers such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley began speaking out against the evils of the system. Although the United States banned slave trade in the early 1800s, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the 13th Amendment was passed, and in South America it was finally ended in Brazil in 1888.

The Germans used slaves during World War II, particularly Jews, Russians and Slavs, all of whom the Germans believed were racially inferior. During this time Japan also made use of slave labor.

==Slavery in the Bible ==
Slavery is also referenced, controlled and regulated in the Bible. There are many instances:

* "And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice (slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen." -- I Kings 9:20-22

* "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant (slave)? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." -- I Corintians 7:20-21

* "Let as many servants (slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." -- I Timothy 6:1-2

* Exodus 21:7 states that a man may sell his daughter into slavery.

* The book of Philemon is a record of Paul returning a slave to his owner.

It is not clear why these parts of the Bible are not supported by those who profess every line of it to be the Word of God.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Women

2007-03-16T02:04:56Z

Romney4king: included Bibilical citation

According to [[biblical literalism]], women, like Men, were created by God on the 6th day of [[Creation]], as told in The Book of [[Genesis]]. [[Genesis]] further elaborates that [[God]] took a rib from [[Adam]], the first Man, and from it created [[Eve]], the first woman, as a subservient companion for [[Adam]]. Also not explicitly stated in the [[Bible]], it is obvious that, due to the manner in which Eve was created, she was Adam's wife, as God does not intend for two humans in such a union to be any other way.{{fact}} Eve caused sin and suffering to come into the world when she tricked Adam into eating from The Tree of Knowledge, an act directly forbidden by God Himself. Saint Paul also has much to say on the status of women in society, most memorably that women should submit to their husbands just as the church submits to God.

The Bible also states that if a man sells his daughter into slavery she must consent and "not go out as the menservants do." (Exodus 21:7)

<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%205:22-24&version=9 Ephesians 5:22-24 ]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2011:8-9;&version=9; I Corinthians 11:8-9]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2011:4-7;&version=9; I Corinthians 11:4-7]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2014:34-35;&version=9; I Corinthians 14:34-35]</ref>

Some woman organizations like the National Organization of Woman disagree with the Bible and argue that they should not have to submit to their husbands, but instead should have "equal" rights.[http://womensvoicesraised.org/bakerLetter.html]

==References==
<references />

Menstruation

2007-03-16T02:00:33Z

Romney4king:

Menstruation occurs at the end of a woman's menstrual cycle. The lining of the uterus is shed and expelled from the body. Menstruation occurs in humans and more developed apes, including [[gorillas]] and [[orangutans]] [http://www.4woman.gov/faq/menstru.htm#4].

== Biblical view ==
----

The Bible states that God does not approve of menstruation (Romans 11:376). In Ezekiel, God condemns an action of the Israelites by equating it to a woman's menstrual cycle: "...to Me their way was like the uncleanness of a woman in her customary impurity" (Ezekiel 36:17). In Isaiah, God also likens man's own righteousness to "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). The English translation here is actually cleaned up a little, as it more directly translates to "a rag of periods" [http://www.atruechurch.info/sexduringmenstruation.html].

The Bible states that if a man and a woman have sexual intercourse during her menstral cycle both must be ostracized by their community: "If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people." (Leviticus 20:18)

Menstruation

2007-03-16T01:57:06Z

Romney4king: formatting, several paragraphs

Menstruation occurs at the end of the menstrual cycle. The lining of the uterus is shed and expelled from the body. Menstruation occurs in humans and more developed apes, including [[gorillas]] and [[orangutans]] [http://www.4woman.gov/faq/menstru.htm#4].

== Biblical view ==
----

The Bible states that God does not approve of menstruation (Romans 11:376). In Ezekiel, God condemns an action of the Israelites by equating it to a woman's menstrual cycle: "...to Me their way was like the uncleanness of a woman in her customary impurity" (Ezekiel 36:17). In Isaiah, God also likens man's own righteousness to "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). The English translation here is actually cleaned up a little, as it more directly translates to "a rag of periods" [http://www.atruechurch.info/sexduringmenstruation.html].

The Bible states that if a man and a woman have sexual intercourse during her menstral cycle both must be ostracized by their community: "If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people." (Leviticus 20:18)

John Schlafly

2007-03-14T23:36:10Z

Romney4king:

John Schlafly is a lawyer. He is the son of [[Phyllis Schlafly]], a [[conservative]] activist. John is the director of Alton, Illinois branch of the [[Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund]], a conservative group founded by his mother.

Women

2007-03-14T14:36:52Z

Romney4king: (included Biblical view of menstruation)

Women, like Men, were created by God on the 6th day of [[Creation]], as told in The Book of [[Genesis]]. [[Genesis]] further elaborates that [[God]] took a rib from [[Adam]], the first Man, and from it created [[Eve]], the first woman, as a subservient companion for [[Adam]]. Also not explicitly stated in the [[Bible]], it is obvious that, due to the manner in which Eve was created, she was Adam's wife, as God does not intend for two humans in such a union to be any other way. Eve causes sin and suffering to come into the world when she tricks Adam into eating from The Tree of Knowledge, an act directly forbidden by God Himself. Saint Paul also has much to say on the status of women in society, most memorably that women should submit to their husbands just as the church submits to God.

== Menstruation ==

----

The Bible states that God does not approvce of menstruation (Romans 11:376). In Ezekiel, God condemns an action of the Israelites by equating it to a woman's menstrual cycle: "...to Me their way was like the uncleanness of a woman in her customary impurity" (Ezekiel 36:17). In Isaiah, God also likens man's own righteousness to "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). The English translation here is actually cleaned up a little, as it more directly translates to "a rag of periods" [http://www.atruechurch.info/sexduringmenstruation.html].

The Bible states that if a man and a woman have sexual intercourse during her menstral cycle both must be ostracized by their community: "If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people." (Leviticus 20:18)

Joseph McCarthy

2007-03-14T14:20:25Z

Romney4king:

''' Joseph Raymond McCarthy''' ([[November 14]], [[1908]] – [[May 2]], [[1957]]) was a [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] [[United States Senate|U.S. Senator]] from the state of [[Wisconsin]] between 1947 and 1957. Beginning in 1950, McCarthy became the most visible public figure to stand up against [[communist]] infiltration of the [[United States]]. He was noted for claiming that there were large numbers of [[Communist party|Communists]] and [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] spies and sympathizers inside the federal government. Ultimately, his aggressive anticommunist tactics led to his being pilloried by the left in the [[Mainstream media]] and censured by the [[United States Senate]]. The term "[[McCarthyism]]," coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits.

Born and raised on a Wisconsin farm, McCarthy earned a law degree at [[Marquette University]] in 1935 and was elected as a [[Circuit (subnational entity)|circuit]] judge in 1939, the youngest in state history.

At age 33, McCarthy bravely volunteered for the [[United States Marine Corps]] and served during [[World War II]]. McCarthy was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in 1952, but it was later discovered that he had exaggerated the number of missions he had flown in order to be eligible for this award. It was later revealed that he had exaggerated other aspects of his service as well (1,2).

He successfully ran for United States Senate in 1946, defeating [[Robert M. La Follette, Jr.]] After several years in the Senate, McCarthy rose suddenly to national fame in 1950 when he brought to light the fact that "members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring" were employed in the [[United States Department of State|State Department]].

McCarthy made charges of Communist infiltration of the State Department, the administration of [[Harry Truman|President Truman]], [[Voice of America]], and a [[United States Army]] research laboratory. He also revealed the presence of communists, communist sympathizers, and disloyal citizens outside of government as well. With the highly publicized [[Army-McCarthy hearings]] of 1954, McCarthy's support and popularity began to fade due to the efforts of the mainstream media. Later in 1954, a special Senate committee was appointed to study and evaluate McCarthy's methods and actions. Following the recommendations of this committee, the full Senate voted to censure Senator McCarthy by a vote of 65 to 22(the votes for censure included all the Republican sentators and about half the Republican senators)<ref>Senate Report 104-137 - Resolution For Disciplinary Action. Library of Congress (1995). Retrieved on 2006-10-19.</ref>, making him one of the few senators ever to be disciplined in this fashion.[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/60.htm] McCarthy died in [[Bethesda Naval Hospital]] on [[May 2]], [[1957]], at the age of 48. The cause of his death was acute [[hepatitis]].[http://www.senatormccarthy.com/index.html]

==VENONA files==
In 1995, when the VENONA transcripts were declassified, further detailed information was revealed about Soviet Union espionage in the United States. VENONA specifically references at least 349 people in the United States—including citizens, immigrants, and permanent residents—who may have cooperated in various ways with Soviet intelligence agencies. It is generally believed that McCarthy had no access to VENONA intelligence, but VENONA supports the view that some of the individuals investigated by McCarthy were indeed Soviet agents. These are several prominent examples:

* [[Mary Jane Keeney]], a [[United Nations]] employee, and her husband Philip Keeney, who worked in the [[Office of Strategic Services]];
* [[Lauchlin Currie]], a special assistant to President Roosevelt;
* [[Virginius Frank Coe]], Director of Division of Monetary Research, U.S. Treasury; Technical Secretary at the [[Bretton Woods]] Conference; [[International Monetary Fund]]
* [[William Ludwig Ullman]], delegate to the United Nations Charter Conference and Bretton Woods Conference;
* [[Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]], Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury and head of the Silvermaster network of spies;
* [[Harold Glasser]], U.S. Treasury Representative to the [[Allied Commission|Allied High Commission in Italy]];
* Four staff members of the [[LaFollette Committee|LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee]], a Senate subcommittee on labor rights chaired by Senator [[Robert La Follette, Jr.]], whom McCarthy defeated for election in 1946;
* [[Allan Rosenberg]], Chief of the Economic Institution Staff, [[Foreign Economic Administration]]; Counsel to the [[National Labor Relations Board]]; argued cases before the [[United States Supreme Court]].

While the underlying premise of Communists in the government was true, many of McCarthy's targets were not complicit in espionage. Recent scholaship has established of 159 persons investigated between 1950 and 1952, there is substantial evidence nine had assisted Soviet espionage using evidence from Venona or other sources. Of the remainder, while not being directly complict in espionage, many were considered security risks.

== Support from Anne Coulter ==

----
Anne Coulter has argued that McCerthy was "a great American patriot. [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter100903.asp]"

==References==
#Herman, A. (1999). Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator. Free Press, p 30. ISBN 0-684-83625-4.
#Morgan, T. (Nov./Dec. 2003). Judge Joe: How the youngest judge in Wisconsin's history became the country's most notorious senator. Legal Affairs.
#[http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona]
<references/>

==Copyright Notice==

{| border="1"
| [[Image:Info.png|left]] [[Image:ccbyncsa.png|right]] This article has been edited by [[User:frijole frijole]]. The content he added (as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Joseph_McCarthy&oldid=30137|here]), as well as all contributions by this user, is covered by a '''Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike US''' license. This has important ramifications for your use or reuse of this material. See the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ license page] for more information.
|}

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-13T01:40:42Z

Romney4king: /* Yes */

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-13T01:36:58Z

Romney4king: /* Yes */

Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

2007-03-13T01:35:57Z

Romney4king: /* Yes */

User talk:MountainDew

2007-03-12T19:11:01Z

Romney4king:

Question: What did I do wrong in the entry for God? It is a fact that all three of those religions worship the same god. They worship different prophets(Islam has Mohammed, Christianity has Jesus and Judaism believes that the son of god hasn't arrived yet), but they do all believe in the same god.

Sorry if this is in the wrong spot, I just didn't know how to send you a message.

Due to your excellent contributions to Conservapedia, you have been made a SYSOP. With these new privileges, you can block any troublesome users by clicking the block button next to their username. You can also revert vandalism using the method described [[Help talk:Contents|here]]. Please block users guilty of minor vandalism for a short period of time, such as a week or two. Obscenity and Offensive edits are reason for an infinite block without warning. Congratulations on becoming a SYSOP! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Your welcome! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the welcome. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 01:52, 8 March 2007 (EST)
== Explaining reversions ==

When reverting as you did [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&curid=6394&diff=17371&oldid=17364 here], it is generally helpful to explain why you choose to revert. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:17, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I'll do that in the future. The user in question was obviously trying to be snarky, but that's nothing I couldn't have specified. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:27, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: It didn't strike me as snarky. It seemed to me to be highly reasonable especially since there issues when we use the term "creationist" precisely what we mean, whether YEC or some other form. This is discussed briefly at [[creationism]]. Regardless, it doesn't make much sense to say someone was in a category when everyone in their time period was in that category. It would be like labeling Julius Caesar pagan. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:32, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I would dispute whether everybody was a creationist in 1841, but I don't think this is really worth arguing over, so if you wish to revert it back, feel free. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:35, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Good entry! ==

Nice entry on Henry David Thoreau! Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:16, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks. I hope to expand on it eventually. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:32, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Tournament Chess Player ==

That's impressive that you're a tournament chess player! I liked chess but was never very good at it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I never actually started taking the game seriously until high school. It just became an addiction for me. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Koronus==
Don't worry I unblocked him to tweak his block. I found an obscene deleted article floating around . He is now blocked for 1 year. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:05, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Edit reverted as vandalism. ==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Unicorn&diff=20130&oldid=20129] it was added by [[User:Conservative]] so I presume it was meant to be serious. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:51, 7 March 2007 (EST)

I think that at the very least, there shouldn't be a statement that implies that the existence of unicorns is definite. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==Staying up Late==

Does Jesus know you are staying up late on a Friday night standing guard over Conservapedia? Shouldn't you be out attempting to be fruitful and multiply?

== Delete and block ==

Please delete Mecha Jesus again and block the user in question. Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== Cheesy potatoes ==

I think it was a little trigger-happy of you to delete the article without saying anything in the discussion taking place at [[Talk:Cheesy potatoes]]. It's not too late to discuss it there now. I'm not suggesting you undelete it, but I think the creator of the article should be given a chance to explain.

Entirely guesswork on my part, but I think it was a good-faith if frivolous contribution by a youngish person. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)

P. P. S. At Wikipedia I don't believe this would have been a valid "speedy deletion" (one performed by a sysop without discussion). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:21, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Making conservatives look bad? ==

How am i making conservatives look bad? Scooter Libby is a pariah although liberals don't want to admit it... I thought this site was about the truth--[[User:PatRobertson2008|PatRobertson2008]] 20:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== The liberal media's already beating up on Gingrich! ==

Poor guy! They were making him look bad in 1995 and it's back again! We need to have his reponse here! I don't want a closet liberal like Giuilani or Mitt Romney to become president!--[[User:PatRobertson2008|PatRobertson2008]] 20:33, 10 March 2007 (EST)

You'd rather have an admitted adulterer and hypocrite? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What are you trying to say?
And I've never endorsed any political candidate on Conservapedia. I am only trying to remove obvious vandalism. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Good block and revert ==

Excellent block and rollback, and locking of the Bush page. Very well done! As you did, when it is an obscenity then simply put on an infinite block. We don't want that block ever expiring. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 10 March 2007 (EST)

P.S. You're absolutely right about being suspicious based on the user id (or screen name). It's amazing how 95% of the time the user id is an obvious giveaway to the bad intentions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Great move in protecting [[Ann Coulter]]. Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== why did you block me? ==

The first line of that article was entirely evolutionist, I was adding the American view. --[[User:Joseph84|Joseph84]] 19:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't block you. Your entry was clearly sarcastic. I only warned you. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 19:35, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Sex" page ==

I just made a pretty little table on the page, and then protected it from editing. So the page does exist, but without any content but the table. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Not Sure ==

I'm not quite sure. Ask Andrew, he should know. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems as though you've figured it out. How do you do it? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Facebook ==

Could you send me a Facebook invite? The Email this User link is active for me. Thanks, --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I can't get the link to work. However, you don't have to have an invite to register. I can send you the link to that actual page within the site if you register. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, thanks for the info. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bad Editing ==

----

Look, I didn't delete everything written before as you allege. Compare the two and you'll see that. All of the previous contributions are there, minus grammar errors and POV stuff. Maybe you should read a little more before you jump to conclusions.... [[User:Romney4King|Romney4King]]

User talk:Romney4king

2007-03-12T19:08:30Z

Romney4king:

I trust your sources, but you shouldn't rewrite the whole article because that takes away all the work that everybody before you has done. Instead, you should integrate them into the article or maybe add new paragraphs rather than deleting anything. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't. Compare the two and you'll see that. All of the previous contributions are there, mnius grammar errors and POV stuff. Maybe you should read a little more before you jump to conclusions.... [[User:Romney4King|Romney4King]]

Bill Clinton

2007-03-12T19:04:29Z

Romney4king: Not vandalism. Check my facts and edit, don't just revert it. Corrected many POV errors, redundancies, improved the formatting

'''Bill Clinton''' (full name: William Jefferson Clinton) served as the 42nd [[President of the United States of America]] from 1993-2001, following [[George H. W. Bush]] and preceding [[George W. Bush]].

[[Image:billclinton.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Bill Clinton]]

== Early Life ==
----

Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946 AD in Hope, Arkansas. His father, William Jefferson Blythe Jr. died in a car accident while his mother was pregnant with him. Clinton's mother later married Roger Clinton, and the young William was given his stepfather's name.

Clinton was active in hi9s high school, participating in various student government organizations as well as playing the saxophone. Roger Clinton, however, made Bill's family life unpleasant by repeatedly abusing Clinton's mother and her children. Bill Clinton would eventually stand up to his stepfather in high school, forcing him to stop beating his mother and kicking him out of the house. After Roger Clinton underwent alcohol rehabiliation, he would eventually rejoin the family.

Clinton attended [[Georgetown University]], then [[Oxford University]] after winning a [[Rhodes Scholarship]], and finally earned a Juris Doctorate from [[Yale University]] in 1973 ADE. At Yale he met [[Hillary Rodham]], whom he would later marry [http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html].

== Early Political Career ==
----

After returning to live in Arkansas, Clinton was elected [[Attorney General]] of Arkansas in 1976 AD. Two years later, he was elected Governor of Arkansas, becoming the youngest governor in the country as a 32 year-old. Though defeated in 1980 AD, Clinton won back the governorship in 1982 AD and held it until becoming President in 1992 AD. During his time as governor, Clinton was known for his bipartisan leadership. Some business transactions he while made were extensively investigated for years (the [[Whitewater]] scandal), though apparantly there was not enough evidence found to warrant an indictment.

== Presidency ==
----

Clinton's presidency is notable as he never won a majority of the popular vote, though he won more votes than any of his opponents. Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote versus President [[George H. W. Bush's]] 37%, capitalizing on public discontent with a weak economy and public displeasure with Bush's proposed tax increases, and Ross Perot, a popular third candidate. In his first two years in office, 1993 through 1994, Clinton was unable to "reform" health-care in the United States by some sort of government-backed universal health-care insurance, which many conservatives felt would result in effective government control of the health care system. His approach consisted of appointing a planning committee with secret members to reshape this important sector of the economy. The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] successfully sued to force disclosure of the committee members, and Clinton was ultimately unable to pass the program.

In 1994, voters expressed their high disapproval of Clinton by giving a landslide victory to Republicans in Congress, where Republicans won 49.9% of the popular vote (compared to the Democrat's 44%). This event was tagged the "Republican Revolution," amd began a series of showdowns with the Republican-led Congress. These showdowns were epitomized by the budget conflict with then-Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] in 1995. Gingrich refused to pass Clinton's budget proposal, and the latter threatened to shut down the government if he did not have his way. When Clinton called his bluff, Gingrich caused the federal government to shut down for several days. Clinton did not cave, however, and eventually had his budget passed [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint082800d.html]. This showdown backfired for the Republicans, as it reinvigorated Clinton's flagging approaval ratings, which would remain above 60% for most of his presidency[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Clinton_approval_rating.JPG].

Clinton was reelected in 1996 with 49.2% of the popular vote against Republican candidate ([[Robert Dole | Bob Dole]]), who won 41%, and "populist" candidate, [[H. Ross Perot]], who won 8%. Clinton spent a lot of the remainder of his presidency combating scandals. A special prosecutor was named to investigate Clinton for allegations of impropriety in the Whitewater real-estate scandal, an investment of Clinton's in a failed real estate venture. Although nothing came out of this investigation, and it turned out that Clinton actually lost money on his investment, one of the results of the investigation was that the special prosecutor turned to investigating other Clinton activities, one of which (the [[Monica Lewinsky]] scandal) resulted in his impeachment. After a brief trial, the Senate acquitted all charges.

Clinton was impeached by the US House of Representatives during his second term for lying in grand jury testimony connected to the Paula Jones lawsuit. However, the US Senate voted not to remove him from office. His term also saw an increase in terrorism directed at the United States. These incidents included the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the Alfred P. Murrah building bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Clinton responded by striking back at [[al Qaeda]], the organization responsible for the attacks. He launched cruise missile strikes aimed to kill al Qaeda's leader [[Osama bin Laden]] [http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/], and began planning to invade [[Afghanistan]] in order to capture bin Laden and overthrow the [[Taliban]] government[http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml].

Clinton also signed into law the [[Violence Against Women Act]], which opened the federal courts to claims of domestic disputes between men and women, which had always been handled under state rather than federal law. A key provision of this law was later ruled unconstitutional in [[United States v. Morrison]].<ref>http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZS.html</ref>

Under Clinton's presidency, the economy boomed, creating the largest ever budget surplus. <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/</ref>

Clinton devoted much time during his two terms to the peace process in Northern Ireland. He made interventions including 3 trips to Ireland during periods of stagnation in negotiations which coincided in major breakthroughs which ensured the province didn't slide back to the violence of the 70's and 80's.

== After the Presidency ==
----

Clinton has spent much of time since leaving office working for charitable causes such as support and fundraising for the victims of AIDS and the Asian tsunami.

Bill Clinton's wife, [[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton|Hillary Clinton]], may be seeking the presidency as well. She was elected Sendator to New York in 2000. Reelected in 2006, she is now running for president in 2008.

Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff was John Podesta between 1998-2001.

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Bill Clinton

2007-03-12T18:56:01Z

Romney4king:

'''Bill Clinton''' (full name: William Jefferson Clinton) served as the 42nd [[President of the United States of America]] from 1993-2001, following [[George H. W. Bush]] and preceding [[George W. Bush]].

[[Image:billclinton.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Bill Clinton]]

== Early Life ==
----

Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946 AD in Hope, Arkansas. His father, William Jefferson Blythe Jr. died in a car accident while his mother was pregnant with him. Clinton's mother later married Roger Clinton, and the young William was given his stepfather's name.

Clinton was active in hi9s high school, participating in various student government organizations as well as playing the saxophone. Roger Clinton, however, made Bill's family life unpleasant by repeatedly abusing Clinton's mother and her children. Bill Clinton would eventually stand up to his stepfather in high school, forcing him to stop beating his mother and kicking him out of the house. After Roger Clinton underwent alcohol rehabiliation, he would eventually rejoin the family.

Clinton attended [[Georgetown University]], then [[Oxford University]] after winning a [[Rhodes Scholarship]], and finally earned a Juris Doctorate from [[Yale University]] in 1973 ADE. At Yale he met [[Hillary Rodham]], whom he would later marry [http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html].

== Early Political Career ==
----

After returning to live in Arkansas, Clinton was elected [[Attorney General]] of Arkansas in 1976 AD. Two years later, he was elected Governor of Arkansas, becoming the youngest governor in the country as a 32 year-old. Though defeated in 1980 AD, Clinton won back the governorship in 1982 AD and held it until becoming President in 1992 AD. During his time as governor, Clinton was known for his bipartisan leadership. Some business transactions he while made were extensively investigated for years (the [[Whitewater]] scandal), though apparantly there was not enough evidence found to warrant an indictment.

== Presidency ==
----

Clinton's presidency is notable as he never won a majority of the popular vote, though he won more votes than any of his opponents. Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote versus President [[George H. W. Bush's]] 37%, capitalizing on public discontent with a weak economy and public displeasure with Bush's proposed tax increases, and Ross Perot, a popular third candidate. In his first two years in office, 1993 through 1994, Clinton was unable to "reform" health-care in the United States by some sort of government-backed universal health-care insurance, which many conservatives felt would result in effective government control of the health care system. His approach consisted of appointing a planning committee with secret members to reshape this important sector of the economy. The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] successfully sued to force disclosure of the committee members, and Clinton was ultimately unable to pass the program.

In 1994, voters expressed their high disapproval of Clinton by giving a landslide victory to Republicans in Congress, where Republicans won 49.9% of the popular vote (compared to the Democrat's 44%). This event was tagged the "Republican Revolution," amd began a series of showdowns with the Republican-led Congress. These showdowns were epitomized by the budget conflict with then-Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] in 1995. Gingrich refused to pass Clinton's budget proposal, and the latter threatened to shut down the government if he did not have his way. When Clinton called his bluff, Gingrich caused the federal government to shut down for several days. Clinton did not cave, however, and eventually had his budget passed [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint082800d.html]. This showdown backfired for the Republicans, as it reinvigorated Clinton's flagging approaval ratings, which would remain above 60% for most of his presidency[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Clinton_approval_rating.JPG].

Clinton was reelected in 1996 with 49.2% of the popular vote against Republican candidate ([[Robert Dole | Bob Dole]]), who won 41%, and "populist" candidate, [[H. Ross Perot]], who won 8%. Clinton spent a lot of the remainder of his presidency combating scandals. A special prosecutor was named to investigate Clinton for allegations of impropriety in the Whitewater real-estate scandal, an investment of Clinton's in a failed real estate venture. Although nothing came out of this investigation, and it turned out that Clinton actually lost money on his investment, one of the results of the investigation was that the special prosecutor turned to investigating other Clinton activities, one of which (the [[Monica Lewinsky]] scandal) resulted in his impeachment. After a brief trial, the Senate acquitted all charges.

Clinton was impeached by the US House of Representatives during his second term for lying in grand jury testimony connected to the Paula Jones lawsuit. However, the US Senate voted not to remove him from office. His term also saw an increase in terrorism directed at the United States. These incidents included the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the Alfred P. Murrah building bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Clinton responded by striking back at [[al Qaeda]], the organization responsible for the attacks. He launched cruise missile strikes aimed to kill al Qaeda's leader [[Osama bin Laden]] [http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/], and began planning to invade [[Afghanistan]] in order to capture bin Laden and overthrow the [[Taliban]] government[http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml].

Clinton also signed into law the [[Violence Against Women Act]], which opened the federal courts to claims of domestic disputes between men and women, which had always been handled under state rather than federal law. A key provision of this law was later ruled unconstitutional in [[United States v. Morrison]].<ref>http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZS.html</ref>

Under Clinton's presidency, the economy boomed, creating the largest ever budget surplus. <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/</ref>

Clinton devoted much time during his two terms to the peace process in Northern Ireland. He made interventions including 3 trips to Ireland during periods of stagnation in negotiations which coincided in major breakthroughs which ensured the province didn't slide back to the violence of the 70's and 80's.

Bill Clinton's wife, [[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton|Hillary Clinton]], may have long sought to become president herself. She used her position of influence to obtain the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate without opposition in 2000, and was elected in this safely Democratic state. Reelected in 2006, she is now running for president in 2008.

Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff was John Podesta between 1998-2001.

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Mark Foley

2007-03-12T15:56:10Z

Romney4king: /* Trivia */

Mark Foley (born on September 8, 1954 AD) is a [[Republican]] who served as a member of the [[House of Representatives]] from 1995 AD to 2006 AD. Before serving in the House, Foley was a member of of the [[Lake Worth City Council]], [[Florida House of Representatives]], and [[Floride State Senate]]. As a Congressman, Foley served on the [[House Ways and Means Committee]]. He also played a role in the recount of the Florida ballots in the 2000 presidential election, challenging that the media's work would only "undermine the legitimacy of the presidency." [http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=838]

Foley resigned from the House of Representatives on September 26, 2006 AD after allegations that he had made sexual advances towards several teenage boys came to light. The boys were [[Congressional pages]], and Foley had apparantly sent them suggestive instant massages referring to sexual organs and sex acts [http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/story?id=2509586&page=1]. After Foley's resignation, his lawyer alleged that Foley had been abused by a priest as a boy, and that his client was entering a rehabiliation center for [[alcoholism]]. [http://www.harpers.org/sb-republicans-1160492797.html]

== Trivia ==
----
* The Church of Scientology listed Foley as one of their members up until the scandal [http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/scientologists-scrub-foley-fete-from-site.php]
* Foley was the first [[Republican]] to misquote [[Al Gore]] as having said that he had "invented" the internet. [[www.dailyhowler.com/dh100606.shtml]]
* During the Foley scandal, [[Fox News]] showed a a picture of the congressman with a graphic identifying him as "Mark Foley, D-Fl" [http://youtube.com/watch?v=N_vtC98IFoA].

Mark Foley

2007-03-12T15:52:28Z

Romney4king: /* Trivia */

Mark Foley (born on September 8, 1954 AD) is a [[Republican]] who served as a member of the [[House of Representatives]] from 1995 AD to 2006 AD. Before serving in the House, Foley was a member of of the [[Lake Worth City Council]], [[Florida House of Representatives]], and [[Floride State Senate]]. As a Congressman, Foley served on the [[House Ways and Means Committee]]. He also played a role in the recount of the Florida ballots in the 2000 presidential election, challenging that the media's work would only "undermine the legitimacy of the presidency." [http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=838]

Foley resigned from the House of Representatives on September 26, 2006 AD after allegations that he had made sexual advances towards several teenage boys came to light. The boys were [[Congressional pages]], and Foley had apparantly sent them suggestive instant massages referring to sexual organs and sex acts [http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/story?id=2509586&page=1]. After Foley's resignation, his lawyer alleged that Foley had been abused by a priest as a boy, and that his client was entering a rehabiliation center for [[alcoholism]]. [http://www.harpers.org/sb-republicans-1160492797.html]

== Trivia ==
----
* The Church of Scientology listed Foley as one of their members up until the scandal [http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/scientologists-scrub-foley-fete-from-site.php]
* Foley was the first Republican to misquote Al Gore as saying that he had "invented" the internet. [[www.dailyhowler.com/dh100606.shtml]]
* During the Foley scandal, Fox News showed a a picture of the congressman with a graphic identifying him as "Mark Foley, D-Fl" [http://youtube.com/watch?v=N_vtC98IFoA].

Mark Foley

2007-03-12T15:51:43Z

Romney4king: /* Trivia */

Mark Foley (born on September 8, 1954 AD) is a [[Republican]] who served as a member of the [[House of Representatives]] from 1995 AD to 2006 AD. Before serving in the House, Foley was a member of of the [[Lake Worth City Council]], [[Florida House of Representatives]], and [[Floride State Senate]]. As a Congressman, Foley served on the [[House Ways and Means Committee]]. He also played a role in the recount of the Florida ballots in the 2000 presidential election, challenging that the media's work would only "undermine the legitimacy of the presidency." [http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=838]

Foley resigned from the House of Representatives on September 26, 2006 AD after allegations that he had made sexual advances towards several teenage boys came to light. The boys were [[Congressional pages]], and Foley had apparantly sent them suggestive instant massages referring to sexual organs and sex acts [http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/story?id=2509586&page=1]. After Foley's resignation, his lawyer alleged that Foley had been abused by a priest as a boy, and that his client was entering a rehabiliation center for [[alcoholism]]. [http://www.harpers.org/sb-republicans-1160492797.html]

== Trivia ==
----
* The Church of Scientology listed Foley as one of their members up until the scandal [http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/scientologists-scrub-foley-fete-from-site.php]
* Foley was the first Republican to misquote Al Gore as saying that he had "invented" the internet. [www.dailyhowler.com/dh100606.html]
* During the Foley scandal, Fox News showed a a picture of the congressman with a graphic identifying him as "Mark Foley, D-Fl" [http://youtube.com/watch?v=N_vtC98IFoA].

Mark Foley

2007-03-12T15:49:42Z

Romney4king:

Mark Foley (born on September 8, 1954 AD) is a [[Republican]] who served as a member of the [[House of Representatives]] from 1995 AD to 2006 AD. Before serving in the House, Foley was a member of of the [[Lake Worth City Council]], [[Florida House of Representatives]], and [[Floride State Senate]]. As a Congressman, Foley served on the [[House Ways and Means Committee]]. He also played a role in the recount of the Florida ballots in the 2000 presidential election, challenging that the media's work would only "undermine the legitimacy of the presidency." [http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=838]

Foley resigned from the House of Representatives on September 26, 2006 AD after allegations that he had made sexual advances towards several teenage boys came to light. The boys were [[Congressional pages]], and Foley had apparantly sent them suggestive instant massages referring to sexual organs and sex acts [http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/story?id=2509586&page=1]. After Foley's resignation, his lawyer alleged that Foley had been abused by a priest as a boy, and that his client was entering a rehabiliation center for [[alcoholism]]. [http://www.harpers.org/sb-republicans-1160492797.html]

== Trivia ==
----
* The Church of Scientology listed Foley as one of their members up until the scandal [http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/scientologists-scrub-foley-fete-from-site.php]
* Foley was the first Republican to misquote Al Gore as saying that he had "invented" the internet [www.dailyhowler.com/dh100606.shtml].
* During the Foley scandal, Fox News showed a a picture of the congressman with a graphic identifying him as "Mark Foley, D-Fl" [http://youtube.com/watch?v=N_vtC98IFoA].

Conservative

2007-03-12T15:24:55Z

Romney4king:

A conservative adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue. He agrees with the statement in George Washington's [[Farewell Address]] that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm</ref>

A conservative relies more on the application of reason rather than personal whim. Conservatives oppose collectivism and emphasize equal opportunity rather than equal results. Conservatives support a complete right of self-defense both on an individual level and for our nation as a whole.

Many conservatives hold a strong [[libertarian]] conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the [[economy]], [[gun control]], and the redistribution of wealth. A majority also believe that the state should legislate and control issues like [[abortion]], [[homosexuality]], and [[drugs]].

Every 20-60 years a conservative is elected president of the United States. Examples include:

 [[George Washington]]
 [[James Monroe]]
 [[Grover Cleveland]]
 [[Warren G. Harding]]
 [[Ronald Reagan]]
 [[George W. Bush]]

== References ==

<references/>

Al Gore

2007-03-12T15:20:08Z

Romney4king:

Albert Gore was the Vice President of the [[United States]] (1993-2001). He also ran for the Presidency in 2000, losing narrowly to [[George W. Bush]]. He now is famous for giving lectures promoting a response at the civic and governmental levels to global warming. Some of these lectures were turned into the documentary [[An Inconvenient Truth]], for which Gore won the 2007 Oscar for Best Documentary [http://http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/an_inconvenient_8.php]. He has said that he does not plan to run for President in 2008 at this point.

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Vaccine

2007-03-12T15:15:12Z

Romney4king:

A weakened or inactive version of a [[pathogen]] that stimulates the body's production of [[antibodies]] which can destroy the pathogen.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.

2000</ref>. Historical examples of successful vaccination programs include those for smallpox and polio. Recently, vaccines have been used to deal with sexually transmitted diseases such as the [[HPV]] virus. Some Christian groups have objected to the use of such vaccines since they could potentially encourage promiscuity in chidren.

Since doctors began using vaccines, however, many diseases have been curbed. [[Polio]], for example, killed over 3,000 people in the United States in 1952 [http://www.http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/VSUS_1952_2.pdf], and inflict such noted persons as President [[Franklin Delanor Roosevelt]], actor [[Alan Alda]], and musician [[Itzak Perlman]]. When doctors began using a vaccine to fight polio, it more or less erradicated the disease in the developed world.

Other diseases that have been curbed since the invention of vaccines include [[smallpox]] (previously a yearly killer of thousands worldwide), [[chicken pox]], [[measles]], [[mumps]], [[rubella]], and [[typhoid]]. Because these diseases were prevalent before the use of vaccines and rare afterwards, many people believe that vaccines may have something to do with preventing the diseases.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Carleton College

2007-03-12T14:58:19Z

Romney4king:

Carleton College is a small, elite liberal arts college in Northfield Minnesota. It was founded in 1866.

Karl Rove

2007-03-12T14:55:27Z

Romney4king:

Karl Rove, born on [[Christmas]], 1950 AD, is the [[Deputy Chief of Staff]] in the [[Bush administration]]. Rove's longtime partnership with [[George W. Bush]] dates back to Bush's terms as [[governor]] of [[Texas]]. Rove ran both of Bush's campaigns for governor and for president.

Rove's track to the top began early, when he dropped out of [[the University of Utah]] to work in the [[College Republican National Committee]]. He quickly demonstrated his political guile, including a daring raid into a [[liberal]] opponent's headquarters . Once inside, Rove stole paper with the man's letterhead, wrote slanderous things on them, and distributed them around town [[[[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/rove072399.htm]]]]. This strategy has earned him a place among the cleverest in history, akin to Nazi and, more currently, Chinese propaganda. Rove has also used a number of other innovative strategies, which often is focused around attacking the liberals on their moral shortcomings, while providing little to no proof of such a thing. Rove's clever strategies even have included sending operatives to sort through opponents trash See ([[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1165126,00.html]]).

[[Category:Biographies]]

Rush Limbaugh

2007-03-12T14:48:28Z

Romney4king:

Rush Limbaugh (b. January 12, 1951) is a conservative American radio talk show host.

Limbaugh hosts a radio show famed for its blustery denounciations of anything liberal. He is often at odds with liberal Al Franken [http://www.http://fireside.designcommunity.com/topic-9993.html]. Limbaugh's vitriolic style has been credited with "reviving AM radio in the United States, and is considered by many to have been a catalyst for the Republican Party's 1994 Congressional victories" [http://www.http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10813FA3B5D0C708EDDAB0894DE494D81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLimbaugh%2c%20Rush].

Limbaugh underwent a minor scandal several years ago when his housekeeper was caught purchasing prescription medications, and it was revealed that Limbaugh was addicted to prescription drugs. He has since been rehabilitated.

Another scandal occured when Limbaugh made a joke in which he allegedly referring to Chelsea Cllinton as "the White House dog". Chelsea was thirteen at the time. Limbaugh, however denied that he was talking about Chelsea, stating that he was not making a joke, and Chelsea's picture was accidentally put up on the screen [http://www.http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1995/05/ivins.html].

Tivia

----
He is deaf in his left ear.