Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-06-06T21:09:27Z

Stereophile: being consistent.

{{protected|TK}}

== Editing This Page ==

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

== Biased Line ==

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

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

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

(that he has problems trying to give away)

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

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

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

== Points ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== The whole article ==

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

It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming "religion" similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled "religions" or "agendas," etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.
: I think how it got the religion label is that science is not about beliefs, but global warming has become about beliefs that human beings are causing the world to heat up by their actions. That skeptics of global warming are treated like skeptics of any religion by pro-global warming supporters. Once politics gets involved with it, global warming has become a political theory with an ideology of beliefs and tries to shut down any debates about the issues or allow theories to be tested. Not only that but the scientific method is not followed in many reports, they for example use computers to calculate formulas but refuse to give the formulas or the source code to the programs that calculate data in order for skeptics to test the theory. Many skeptics want to test the theory themselves, which is what science is supposed to allow, but are denied access to information etc that would allow them to conduct their tests. Now we are told that the world must accept that global warming is true and a fact, and that we must believe in it in order to save the planet. Science has never been about beliefs, but when you hold a system of beliefs it is more religion than science. [[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 00:13, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
::Science is supposed to be about evidence. When criticisms are responded to with personal attacks and shouting down rather than evidence, it becomes politcal or a matter of "faith". Of course calling it a religion is a pejorative reference in scientific circles. --[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 04:29, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Al Gore Header ==

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

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

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

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

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

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

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

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

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

== Unlocking ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Liberal bias==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Celsius ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Political bias==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I removed this uncited statement:

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

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

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

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

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

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

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

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

== Image ==

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

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

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

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

== " removing liberalness" ==

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

== How about these changes? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Neptune ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

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

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

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

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

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

==AGW==

Cut from article:

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

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

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

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

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

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

==Liberal Falsehood==

The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term "liberal falsehood" to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with DanH. You can't deny that global warming is happening. The real question is whether or not it's natural or if it's caused by us. An article about global warming itself and not about a specific cause of it can hardly be ca;;ed a "liberal falsehood" can it?[[User:Nsmyth|Nsmyth]] 03:03, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think another point of dispute is what global warming actually is. Is it a real problem of the planet getting inexorably warmer, or just the rising part of a regular (or irregular) warming/cooling cycle? It's not that long since the alarmists were telling us that we were headed for another ice age! The term "global warming" doesn't suggest the latter, so depending on just what the term means, I would suggest that some ''do'' dispute whether it (the former definition) is a real phenomenon at all. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:51, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Liberal bias, as it has just been changed to, sounds much better. Falsehood sounded like too big an elephant to chew. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you, Learn together! I am so use to people calling me an idiot or disagreeing with anything I do, I will save this post of yours! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:12, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hockey Stick ==

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

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::::The wording that Jaques keeps deleting was previously approved by sysop Phillip J Rayment. These deletions smack of vandalism are against the CP commandments. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Standard Wikipedia tactic. Come into channel, blame someone for rules violations, get him booted, take over, right? It worked for SlimVirgin over there. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*I will be the decider of that sock, not you. I suggest you keep to productive edits, and off the talk pages. Unfortunately, Arjen was a sock of BrianCo, and actually even posted on the user page. Both gone now. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I am still not getting what's wrong with an oil company funding global warming research. Or what is significant about some of that research being different from the consensus. What do the critics think -- that ExxonMobil should ignore the issue? That all research should just endorse what has already been published? I made a change to drop some of the goofy conspiratorial innuendo. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::There's no innuendo about a statement of fact - this company gave this much money to these organizations over this period of time, and the organizations all had one thing in common. It's not a conspiracy - it's a perfectly straightforward transaction as far as I can see. There's no secret about it and the figures are public. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: The innuendo is that that oil companies only gave money to skeptics, that they funded bad science, and that there is something improper about them funding research. Your sources don't prove any of those things, and are just goofy left-wing conspiracy rants. Can you please explain the point of the statement on the Talk page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::There is nothing improper at all about a company only funding researchers whose views are in their commercial interests and I don't think the statement says it's improper - it says E-M is opposed to this view and they fund people whose views agree with theirs but run counter to the mainstream. As I said, there's no conspiracy about it - conspiracy implies secrecy and this is no secret. Moreover, it could be argued that it's entirely proper for a company to defend its own commercial interests and that of its shareholders. I can't understand why there should be a problem about making their stance clear, as it's unarguable that this is their stance.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:02, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: The problem with your claim is that it is just not true that ExxonMobil only funds research that runs counter to the mainstream. It has given $100M to Stanford Univ. for mainstream research. Your sources on this do suggest a kooky conspiracy theory, it is just not plausible and not reported in any reliable source. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you! It needs a because it is mostly inserted UN material. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

For the record, the fact that I copyedit something rather than remove it should not be taken as "approval" of it. It might just mean that I have no knowledge of its accuracy, or haven't bothered to research it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Philip, I didn't see anyone blaming you....the edits can all be seen. No worries. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:48, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
: No, no-one "blamed" me for anything, but Arjen cited me as approving the paragraph in question, simply because I edited it and didn't remove it, so I was just making clear that my editing should not imply approval. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Oh! Well it was his snippy remark that lead me to research him, and I found him to be a smelly old sock, Philip. So no need to bother with him anymore! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Re-write Time.... ==

Has anyone actually read this article? Not with an eye towards editing it, but from the POV of someone seeking information? I doubt it. It is overly technical and wordy, cumbersome, IMO. Sort of what one gets via committee, lol. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:There's not much that can be done right now; it's locked. I agree, in looking at it, that it lacks flow. Even the opening paragraph has redundancies. I wonder why we keep the hockey stick graph if we know there are problems with it? -- even 'wiki' has less liberal graphs. I also wonder why we don't use fahrenheit instead of celsius. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed direction ==

I'd like to find a good source that concisely lays out the IPCC case for attributing the warming to GHGs. I know that in the TAR, the evidence was chiefly the inability of the models to reproduce the temperature trend without GHGs. Since then AR4 has reduced the estimated contribution of solar activity even further. But I don't think I will find a good layout of the IPCC case in the summary for policy makers. I need to look at the working group I report again.

Of course the response will be to point out the poor quality of the models, as done on the Climate models page, and the rare and unusual level of current solar activity per Solanki, and how poorly solar activity is understood per Foucal (sp?).

There is also a possible significant and underappreciated role for aerosols, with the trend from solar dimming to solar brightening, in the late 80s and 90s.

I am not sure what the purpose of the "Natural variability of the climate system" section is, it doesn't go anywhere, and the information it describes is not particularly controversial. Even scientists who don't "believe in global warming" accept the ices ages.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 02:25, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Creationary scientists don't believe in multiple [[ice age]]s, regardless of whether or not they believe in global warming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Wouldn't that be covered by a note or sentence in the body, Philip? I don't feel comfortable making each and every article here from a YEC POV, as that idea isn't covered by our Commandments or Guidelines. Being that we have many who are YEC's, we need to strive more for inclusion, rather than exclusion, by at least noting where some Christians differ, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:28, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::Ah, but it is covered by the commandment that says every article must be true and accurate! :-)
::Seriously, as far as I'm aware, there is no YEC POV in this article. What there has been, however, are anti-YEC beliefs presented as true. For example, stating that there have been multiple ice ages over millions of years is an anti-YEC (and anti-biblical) POV. All I have done is qualify any matter-of-fact statements that assume an anti-YEC position so that they are not presented as undisputed truth.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:23, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I was mainly addressing the bringing up of the ice ages themselves, the section doesn't seem to be serving a relevant purpose. Separately, labeling everything purported to be older that 6000 years "evolutionary", seems a bit paranoid and fearful, as if the "believer" might be seduced by the evidence if not properly fortified with a warning. We are not serving the broader conservative community by projecting this appearance.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 19:51, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::::I've got no objection to removing any reference to YEC ideas, as long as old-Earth/evolutionary ideas are also removed. If there is no need for the section with the mention of ice ages, I'm happy for it to go.
::::Labelling everything older than 6000 years as "evolutionary" is an attempt to avoid it being written as though the old ages are correct. If there's a better way of doing that, I've no objection. But I don't want any part of the article to be written as though hundreds of thousands or millions of years is just accepted to be correct. That would be like me asking an evolutionist to accept it being written it as though the Earth was only 6000 years old. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

*This is a place Andy needs to consider and post in. Personally, I agree with you, Africangenesis. But Andy is the man, so I will point him this way. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:31, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

:The "Natural variability of the climate system" section has no purpose that I can see. There is a role for the glacial ice core data, that has been cited by both sides. Those pro-global warming cite the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in the ice cores. The skeptics point out that the temperature rises PRECEDED the CO2 rises. It is pretty much a wash, so I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned. This section doesn't deal with either argument. The "evolutionary" label was used elsewhere in the article, not just in this section. I think it will detract from the perceived quality of our work. Frankly, it was so unusual to see in this context, that I didn't know what to make of it at first.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 05:00, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, I can understand. However if you or I subscribed to the Young Earth Creationist's POV, you would. So better we put this to the boss, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:05, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

----

=== YEC POV Or Not? ===

TK said: "I don't feel comfortable making each and every article here from a YEC POV, as that idea isn't covered by our Commandments or Guidelines." This is very important point for CP and I'm happy to see that this question is rising to be topic in earnest discussions. It is fair and clear for users (both editors and readers) to say that this site is limited to YEC articles - or to leave other possibilites for views in articles if decided so. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 13:46, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Thanks. But the answer seems to have been given by PhilipR, just after my post, which you quote.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:53, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

::I want to discuss this topic not only to decide what is the contents of this article but how different views are handled in CP. Is this site for YEC? Does this site say directly it is? Or is this site going to be something else - wider views... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 14:14, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Conservapedia does not suppress the YEC view, but neither does it endorse the YEC view, nor the evolutionary view. So statements that are worded as though the evolutionary view is correct will be changed so as to read that it is the evolutionary view rather than fact, but the evolutionary view is still allowed. Is that clear enough? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

==Direction of research efforts==

Cut from intro:

:The focus of the science surrounding global warming has been to determine whether it is the result the natural internal variability of the climate, or due to other influences such as solar or human activity.

Is it determining ''whether'' or trying to prove ''that'' the recent warming trend is man-made? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:It is supposed to be the former, but has become a religion so certain that its issue is urgent and that its thesis will ultimately prevail, that some of the WG1 authors are willing to suppress contrary evidence perhaps seeing it as a mere blip in the road and to exploit general ignorance of the subject with simplistic fear mongering.

:Some of it is simple denial, if you had spent two and a half years and millions of dollars of computer time, would you want your "projections" of the future climate based on GHG scenerios relegated to a mere intellectual exercise by a simple study such as Roesch's (see [[Climate model]]). The models are 5 or 10 years away from being accurate enough to attribute and project a 0.75W/m^2 energy imbalance. There is the distinct possibility that 5 or 10 years from now, they will still be 5 or 10 years away. --[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 19:44, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:38, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Equilibrium and Energy Imbalance ==

This is the name of a new section I'm not yet ready to write. What I intend to point out is the climate commitment studies of Wigley and Meehl, that show that most of the surface temperature response to a change in forcing, occurs within a few decades, but the energy imbalance continues, even after the initial response of the land surface and the top layer of the ocean, for centuries and can be continuing even after a thousand years, as heat is either stored into or released from the deep oceans. Since there has probably never been a thousand years without a volcanic eruption or some variation in solar activity beyond the 11 year cycle, the climate has never been in equilibrium, and thus is ALWAYs changing, either warming or cooling, and there is always an enery imbalance. Cites from Hansen and Pielke and others will quantify the current imbalance. (its much smaller than the documented errors in the models of course).

Since the plateau in solar activity that was reached circa 1940 is continuing (per Solanki), to this day, some of the energy imbalance must be attributable to this new (in equilibrium terms) solar forcing that has not yet had time to equilibrate. Attribution can get trickly. There was a midcentury 50s to 80s, cooling that was probably due to aerosols, so what is the subsequent warming to be attributed to? It is to be attributed to the reduction in aerosols or to a resumption of the climate's equilibration to the continuing level of solar forcing, which had merely been delayed by the aerosols? And greenhouse gas increases contributed as well. It is not an easy pie to cut. I think the climate commitment studies tell us that a solar contribution cannot be denied, nor a contribution from the earlier greenhouse gas increases. Transient forcings such as volcano eruptions don't get attribution unless they are currently occurring and what we are trying to attribute is currently occurring.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 04:50, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Solar variability ==

I also intend a section where solar variability and cycles are discussed. I think we should prominently feature Solanki's statistical work, based on analysis of proxies of past solar activity, that shows that the current high plateau in solar activity has only an 8% probability of lasting until the year 2050. We also should have some acknowledgement of solar conveyor theory which predicts that the next cycle will be active, but the following cycle is expected to be unusually low. Then some discussion of the multidecadal and centuries long cycles. The 1470 year cycle gets us into the ice core record however, it is difficult to detect in the interglacials but probably persists there, the climate just isn't near a tipping point that allows its signature to be recorded, like it is during the ice ages. The cosmic ray link should also be discussed, but the scientific support, like also that for the solar conveyor theory is very preliminary, and should be identified as such.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 05:14, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Try this columnist ==

Someone might find something useful for this article in [http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_aunty_catches_cold/ this newspaper column]. Actually, if you want to trawl through his blog, you might find more stuff, such as a link to [http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1616 this site] showing pictures of a high-qual..., er, a weather station. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:26, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Stop Politicizing ==

I removed several gossipy bits. Polls showing what non-expert citizens "think" are gossip. Since most will have little understanding of actual science, their opinions merit what in this encyclopedia? Speculation about how some possible legislation, at some point in the future, might effect Exxon-Mobile, is just plain crap as well. It is a given that the UN's panel was politicized, as its members were appointed by the governments involved, usually without some panel of experts recommending who to appoint. Please stop introducing material that explains away this fact. This article will now remain locked, and you can request a sysop to unlock it for editing, or post your wanted additions here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:51, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:Using this precedent, I would like to request that the part of creationism article named "Popularity and Scientific Community Consensus" be abridged so that it is only the "Scientific Community Consensus" section now, as well as the "adherenets and opponents of creationism" be removed because according to you "most will have little understanding of actual science, their opinions merit what in this encyclopedia?" And creationism really is all about the science behind it, right? Not the faith, even if it is a tenant of many a religion.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 17:09, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

User:Stereophile

2007-05-27T19:55:35Z

Stereophile: New page: I enjoy rockin' tunes.

I enjoy rockin' tunes.

Talk:Ignorance

2007-05-26T17:48:10Z

Stereophile: New page: == Possible Revisions? == Is it just me, or does this article seem unfairly and excessively pointed?--~~~~

== Possible Revisions? ==

Is it just me, or does this article seem unfairly and excessively pointed?--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 13:48, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?

2007-05-22T00:45:04Z

Stereophile:

{{debate}}

==YES==

The European colonists brought Christianity to the Americas and ended the Central American practice of [[human sacrifice]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I wonder how many people were killed to achieve this (latter) laudable aim? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

They sensibly replaced it with the human sacrifice to the concept of justice (capital punishment). The improvement here is that efforts are often made to avoid sacrificing innocent individuals. Thus the blood-lust of the population could be nurtured without arbitary victimisation of innocents. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
: North American Indians did not practice human sacrifice. [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it was definitely good for the natives. Look at how they lived before Europeans came to America. They lived in tepees and were practically naked all the time. Wouldn't you want help if you were in that situation? Thanks to our colonial ancestors, native people now have a much higher quality of life due to casinos, yet are still able to maintain some of their old ways on their reservations. It is the duty of civilized peoples to raise their inferiors up from savagery. Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" comes to mind:

:Take up the White Man’s burden—
:Send forth the best ye breed—
:Go bind your sons to exile
:To serve your captives’ need;
:To wait in heavy harness,
:On fluttered folk and wild—
:Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
:Half-devil and half-child.

--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Am I allowed to argue on both sides? I don't think this is a black and white issue.

If the reports of "smallpox blankets" and Caribbean slavery are true, then Columbus took advantage of several thousand native Americans. Also, I've heard that the native population was reduced 90% by European colonists - presumably through conquest and starvation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the point of this debate is, the question seems bit of a Trojan Horse, but I would imagine that those who survived would say no. Bringing disease, alcohol and superior firepower to wipe many of them out, then settling their land out can hardly be a good thing from their point of view. Hopefully a few of them will respond here. Of course from the colonists' point of view everything has turned out pretty good. Also European colonization of the Americas covers a very wide range of incomers and indigenous peoples so there can be no simple answer. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

No. Just look at the [[Trail of Tears]] and the [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]. I don't think after the North American Indians (who did NOT practice human sacrifice) who surivived mass slaughter, deportation, the rape of their women, the capture of their land, the deliberate and inadvertant spread of disease were thinking: and they brought us Christianity! What benevolent people! [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

My God. I cannot believe that anyone is so historically ignorant that they even could ask such a question. Let’s put it this way: If invaders raped your women, forced their religion on you, stole your land, and exposed your people to diseases that resulted in population loss of 90%, would you be OK with that? I did not think so. White man’s burden? Who asked for your help? We were just fine until you jackasses showed up.--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:I hate to ruin your liberal-taught preconceived ideas of how America was colonized, but you have been grossly misinformed. There was not nearly as much raping going on as is claimed by anti-European groups. And for the most part, at least in North America, land was not stolen. It was bought by the British/US governments from tribal leaders, but some of the tribe members refused to leave and had to be evicted or killed. And don't pretend like native tribes were having one big peacefest prior to the arrival of Europeans. The fact is that tribes had been at war with each other for centuries, committing atrocities that rivaled or even surpassed those of the colonials. Even when uniting against the so-called "invaders" would have been in their best interests, they didn't do so.
:If it wasn't for European colonization, there would still be wars between tribes going on today. You're welcome.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
DO you have any sources to back that up?--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Good to know that that rape and murder is something to be thankful for. So remember, the next time someone breaks into your home, kills you, rapes your wife, and carries your children off and sells them into slavery, you are supposed to thank them! No wonder people think conservatives are stupid and racist! They never miss a chance to prove they are!--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 15:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservateur, moral equivocation doesn't make what colonists did either helpful, good, or justified in any way. Just because some of the tribes were at war with each other, or that they commited atrocities that "rivaled or even surpassed" those of the colonists, doesn't make it alright that we devastated them with disease, took any of their lands whatsoever, and commited any acts of violence for the goal of westward conquest. The fact is, colonists were the result of their decimated population, and the loss of their tribal lands, whether through sale or force, and that has to be recognized. And even if it was our intervention that stopped their warring (though clearly, that was not the goal when we set out to expand "our" country), it cost them more than any of their tribal conflics ever did. The natives got the short end of the bargain.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 20:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?

2007-05-22T00:44:30Z

Stereophile:

Talk:Great Flood

2007-05-12T21:51:14Z

Stereophile: evolution and the great flood

== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are ''not'' Christians? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::They were once, before they burried the bible underneath centuries of accumulated doctrine, empty ritual, decree and politics. Any church which gives a human the authority to make holy decrees though cannot be truely respecting Christ, the only authority to do so. {{unsigned|BornAgainBrit}}

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:.''..was the last great event shared by mankind.'' This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

:::Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

=='Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'==
This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Real evidence or made up stuff? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal Modest proposal] about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'==

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:What are you talking about? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm Some examples]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, read through this paper [http://www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/eocduwg6h2lbh2t2dodpuddbzjllqbuo2mnlqiu4b4iyfizk2ofo33fxize7onhybfyou7eebjjbacbn7fd67uzddhb/wright.pdf here]. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::the ''schwerpunkt'' of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::k. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to ''exactly the same time''...

:Precisely correct. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit

== On Kant ==

:Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You Kant critique pure reason. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== On Truth ==

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ Black Sea food theory]? This is geological evidence that there ''was'' a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Here's the Greek flood story [http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html] for writing that bit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fossilization process==
I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html Something] a very quick Google search turned up:
{{QuoteBox|The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?}}
:I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is apparently based on [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634 this report]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on ''dead'' matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.

::No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there ''was'' something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:What? How does an explanation of ''why'' C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That was ''not'' an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the ''time since death'', it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
:::* Karajou mentioned that a ''living'' mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
:::* Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on ''dead'' material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
:::* I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it ''can'' be used on living material, but ''should'' give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) ''does'' demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
:::Is that clearer now?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is ''not'' they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article will be replaced ==

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to ''replace'' the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may ''not'' be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on [[Flood Geology]], so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Done ===
Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Flood&oldid=63651 the version it replaced] before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a [[Flood Geology]] article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under [[Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts]] are ''not'' meant to be comprehensive. ''Many'' more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==I like it...but==
Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:
*Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
*I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.
And the pic. I want the pic! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:
*It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
*Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
*It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I expected that the picture would go back. The ''only'' objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
:"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood ''stories'', not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
:I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
:Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
:The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== 3000 BC? ==

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How can a date '''often''' be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5728/1551]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date ''estimates'' can be so problematic. [[http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have ''disappeared,'' it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Answers in Creation is an '''OEC''' site. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
::::"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."<ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm</ref>.
:::Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --[[User:M|M]] 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way [[dendrochronology]] can be part of the current article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I forgot to answer the matter of tree-ring dating. As another editor has raised it again (below), see my response there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There ''are'' claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

'''M''' wrote: ''The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC''. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

'''Tsumetai''' wrote: ''Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old.'' The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

:There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
:::The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
::You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it's a measurement [http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates]. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.

:::Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is ''not'' a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an ''estimate'' based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there ''are'' items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are ''measured'' by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an ''estimate'' based partly on an ''extrapolation'' and partly on some unknown C14 test.
::::I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. [http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm Here is a link](scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:First, I don't believe that this article is the place to discuss tree-ring dating. This is an article about the Flood, not about dating, and tree-ring dating is merely one dating method that is used by bibliosceptics to argue against the flood. While there may be some value in including a mention that uniformitarian dating methods conflict with the Biblical record, going much beyond that in trying to refute the Flood is going against the purpose of this article.
:Second, your inability to imagine a way to refute tree-ring dating results may say more about your imagination than anything else. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Here] is just such a refutation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to sound so closed-minded, but the whole carbon-dating conversation makes me upset. Just "saying" that something isn't reliable in science is just as bad as "saying" that the Bible can't be trusted. And that's all it is is talk by people who know so little about science, or by ONE OR TWO scientists(Chritian scientists) vs. millions, discrediting cinvincing evidence. And, unfortunately, it's the same vice-versa most of the time.

I know that this specific talk page probably isn't the best place, but it's already been brought up. If you want to believe in a global flood, go for it. Just stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports it. It doesn't and never will. Plus, with a divine, interveneing God, why do you even NEED scientific evidence? Just believe in it or dont, and stop speaking from misinformation.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Creationists don't just "say" that dating methods are not reliable; they back it up with evidence, often from non-creationists (which refutes the negatively-exaggerated "one or two"). I'm not "pretending" that the scientific evidence supports it, and I'd thank you to not impugn my motives like that. I ''believe'' that the scientific evidence is consistent with a global flood. You clearly don't, and that's your right, but please don't insult others who see things differently to you.
::Creationists "need" scientific evidence because our faith is not, despite atheistic propaganda, a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And you have accused us of misinformation without providing any evidence of that.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't it fairly settled that Egypt goes waaaay before 3000 BCE? Also, you argue that "genealogies" can be compressed or expanded and are susceptible to error, making it ''certain'' that Egyptologists (who know a lot more than you, Phil!) are wrong. I'm sure that we can cross-apply this argument to analysis of Biblical genealogies. Biblical ''"scientists"'' say that the genealogies must go back only 6,000 years ago. But using your argument, I'm sure that that's susceptible to stretching, when it reaches an absurd result :-P
: Also, Ur goes back way before 3,000 BCE too. Are you a historian, Phil? What '''''are''''' you? I thoroughly read ancient primary sources and secondary interpretations, and there is not a single archaeologist, or historian, who is actually credible, who will say that Egyptian culture (or Etruscan culture, or proto-Greek culture) goes back only to 3,000 BCE. Even linguists agree that proto-Indo European has a greater vintage than that! Be serious here, for the love of God. When you realize the facts don't line up with your beliefs, then just take your beliefs ''on faith'', which is all they require, and stop insisting that science and history conform to your outmoded view of the way the world actually works. It is simply disgusting and an embarrassment to all that human understanding has struggled to achieve.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not an expert on Egyptian history (as you note), but no, the Egyptian history is ''not'' settled. There are a number of archaeologists who question if not reject the conventional Egyptian chronology.
::And note that I was talking about a compression of chronology, not genealogies. The Egyptian chronology is nothing like as clear-cut as the biblical chronogenealogies, so being able to compress one does not mean that the other is capable of being compressed.
::Please define "credible" in your reference to archaeologists and historians, because if I produce an archaeologist who does accept a shorter chronology, I don't want him automatically rejected as not credible because he believes that.
::As I've just said to Muchodelcrazy, Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And your final sentences amount to saying that "your beliefs don't fit with my beliefs, which I label "facts", so your belief must be wrong".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Why not just kick it old school and "believe?"

Here's some sources for research: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm][http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]

I think that some people have a serious misconception about how radiometric dating. Scientists don't just do a test, go "this is what I found," and make an answer. If you read the articles, you'll notice that there's over 20 different radiometric tests with different elements. In a single sample, many of these tests (with much larger half-lives than C-14) are used. One test says a number. Another says a similar number. And so on and so on. Then this is done over and over again with similar items, such as two different dinosaur bones found right next to each other. The results come out very similar. Let's say that they find one test that says the dinosaur bones were 5000 years old. Does that refute the other 40 tests? ONE disagreement that, for all we know, could have been done by the guy who's new to the job?

In order to say that this method is wrong, you have to outweigh it, or at least to scientifically say it's wrong. It would be necessary to show that 40 coinciding data points were a.)a similar, phenominally rare, mistake or b.)random coincidince, which is even more phenominally rare (but, admittedly, possible. That's why they keep testing).

At the end of the day(actually, decades), it proves reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. This is my last post on the topic. Im gonna go read the Bible. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:What do you mean, "''Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith?''"? If you are a male, that's a bit like asking why you shouldn't be a female. It seems to be a pointless question, at least in this context. The point is not why it shouldn't be, but what it is. It is a faith based on evidence, not a blind faith.
:You've offered no evidence that there really are "40 coinciding data points". Creationists can point to ''many'' anomalous dates from radiometric dating. That doesn't prove that the methods are worthless, but it does cast doubt over their reliability. And at the end of the day, it proves less than reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. Enjoy reading the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Just a random thought, but... all those awkwardly old trees and plants that seem to date back to before the flood? It occurs to me that after the flood, the land would be quite empty, and a real mess, and the growth of the ecosystem would have been much slower than the growth of the human population. So perhaps God somehow spend things up, a lot - I dont know how, but God would find a way - to just get the ecosystem in place so once humans started to repopulate they would have suitable places to live, hunt and farm. This would account for what appear to be very old plants - they are six thousand years old, but for the first hundred ran in fast-motion. - BornAgainBrit

:::Observed rates of growth even in pristine environments are quite sufficient to allow for the growth since the flood without invoking miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
== Pando ==
''(Continuation of previous section)''
::::Actually, (and this is a ''major'' surprise to me as well), the oldest living organism appears to be at least 80,000 years old. That's eighty ''thousand.'' Here's the relevant quote from http://www.nps.gov/brca/naturescience/quakingaspen.htm :

<blockquote>
Asexual or vegetative reproduction from root systems offers many benefits including phenomenal longevity. Aspen "clones," as the individual root systems are called, can live to be thousands of years old. The oldest known clone in existence is called "Pando" and is located in the Fish Lake National Forest in central Utah. It has been aged at 80,000 years! Although 5-10,000 year-old clones are much more common, even these youngsters are much older than Sequoias and even Bristlecone Pines. Current research on fungal mats in Oregon and Creosote Bushes in the Desert Southwest may dethrone aspen from the title of "Longest Living Thing."
</blockquote>
:There is no information on how this age was derived, or even whether it was measured or estimated. And are they talking about the age of the individual plant or its clonal ancestor? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Looks like clonal ancestor to me - they're treating the entire colony as a single organism, since they share the same root system. ::Basically, each new 'tree' is an offshoot of the one before, and it remains linked to it - like one colossal set of conjoined siblings. Incidentally, this comment's getting rather long...perhaps we should split discussion of ''Pando'' off into a new one?--[[User:M|M]] 09:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if it's the clonal ancestor, are talking here about an extrapolation (i.e. not a measurement) back to something that no longer exists? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I may be mistaken, but I don't believe so; if I read it correctly, the actual root system itself ''is'' eighty thousand years old. All of the offshoots share the same root system, which is why it's referred to as a single (though clonal) organism.--[[User:M|M]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Just Curious - how many were killed? ==

How many people were killed during the great flood? Did they all deserve it? Given the fixation that the Christian right has about sex, we must assume that many of those who received this death setence from the Almighty had indulged in some pre, extra, or even marital sex that resulted in preganncy. Is there an estimate then of how many pregnant women were killed by God through the flood? {{unsigned|Trajsmith}}

:Please, learn to use a spell-check function.--[[User:M|M]] 17:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:The population prior to the flood was not recorded. We have all rejected God (although some have repented of that and accepted Him), so we ''all'' deserve the death sentence. Even Noah and his family. But God chose to not give Noah and his family what they deserved (choosing them because Noah was, humanly speaking, "righteous"), and didn't impose the deserved death penalty on Noah and his family. He even had Noah preach to the people, in order to save them from their destruction, but to no avail. So instead of (implicitly) criticising God for giving the people what they deserved, we should be thanking Him for saving the ones willing to be saved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::WAIT a minute - the penalty for rejecting God, something that we apparently do by virtue of being born, is death? That seems a little screwed up. Most of the world doesn't even ''have'' the death penalty anymore.--[[User:M|M]] 23:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God gave us life, so if we reject Him, we are rejecting the life that he gave us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::That just doesn't parse...parents give their children life, but no civilised society gives parents the right of life or death over their offspring. Parents are responsible ''to'' and ''for'' their children. (Unless you really believe that it would be a good idea to let parents kill disobedient kids?)--[[User:M|M]] 09:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Parents are the instruments by which God gives the children life. They have the responsibility of raising those children for God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm sorry to say this, but...that just doesn't sound sane. I respect my parents for raising me; I share their genes, and many of their personality traits. If I had to choose between God and my parents, it would be an easy decision in favor of the ones who actually participated in my life. --[[User:M|M]] 14:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That's because you don't appreciate how much involvement God has/had "behind the scenes". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Racial" differences since the flood ==

The Article states "One of the strongest evidences for the global flood which annihilated all people on Earth except for Noah and his family". One would then assume only the descendents of Noah and his family would be able to pass on the story of the flood.

The flood legends in the folklore of people from around the world can only be referring to the same event if all these people are related no Noah and his family? According to [[Flood Geology]] the flood occured around 2350 B.C some 4357 years ago. When and how did Hawains and Australian Aboriginies, for example, become ''racially'' different to Noah and his family? I think the article should explain how various human poupulations descended from Noah and his family came to look so different to one another.

{{unsigned|Auld Nick}}

:That is something that should be explained, but not in this article, I think. This is about the historical records of the Flood, and just like Flood Geology is in a separate article, this aspect should be too, although I'm not sure at the moment which article it should be in. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps in the article [[Homo sapiens]]. I'm not too hot on science, you seem to know a lot about these things. Perhaps you could add the stuff to the appropriate article. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:41, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, Homo sapiens might be appropriate. Now to find the time, after all the other things on my to-do list. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution and a Worldwide Flood: Not mutually exclusive? ==

So, I'm just thinking out loud here, but I think that the idea of a worldwide flood would be invalid without accepting evolution in a way similar to how it is presented in schools and books and the internet today.

Here's the deal. Fish live in many different habitats, their survival dependent on several factors including water pH, temperature, and the most important to my idea, salinity. While there are some fish with astoundingly large salt tolerancies, there are others who cannot live except for in a very stable, specific environment, including two well known staples of many American's diets, the catfish and the tuna. These fish would die if they were in an environment with a salinity that was very much different than they are used to, so my point is this. During a worldwide flood, water salinity would be decreased from what it normally is in various parts of the oceans, and it would be increased from that of any freshwater environment. Assuming that what I just said is true, and that evolution is false, we should not have freshwater fish, saltwater fish with low tolerncy for the salinity of their environment being changed.

This clearly isn't true, though, as none of the fish from this particular site (http://fins.actwin.com/species/index.php?t=3&f=1) would exist if not for evolutionary mechanics, presuming, that is, that you should find the idea of a worldwide flood indisputable. Basically, if you believe in the worldwide flood, evolution would kind of go hand in hand.
--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 17:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Secular Science

2007-05-05T19:13:35Z

Stereophile:

"Until the end of the Middle Ages there was no distinction between theology and science. Knowledge was deduced from self-evident principles received from God so science and theology were essentially the same thing"

There is another way of phrasing that...

"Until the end of the Middle Ages, science was constrained by theology. Any discoveries that were contrary to priestly interpretations of scripture were suppressed. Following the [[Renaissance]], and during the [[enlightenment]], a so-called [[scientific revolution]] occurred, where more and more science was free to investigate the natural world without being bound by religious perspectives. This is known as '''secular science''', and it has always been controversial among fundamentalist religious groups, for abandoning the Word of God in pursuit of knowledge." [[User:Human|Human]] 14:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:"scientists will continue to search for a natural explanation for a phenomenon until they find one, instead of settling with a supernatural explanation." This implies they will find one. And I '''support''' the move to Physical science. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::How about "in the belief that they will find one" or "based on the expectation that they will find one" in place of "until they find one"? As far as the merge, it makes sense to me, will anyone ever search for "secular science"? They might ''link'' to it, I suppose, but that's what redirects are for. So I '''support''' the move. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I think the title "secular science" is just wierd. It seems to imply that anything which actually looks for knowledge outside the Bible is evil and liberal, which certainly isn't true. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I'll change, the sentence "based on the expectation that they will find one".
But, it is true scientists never keep searching for an explanation until they find one, you wouldn't be a good scientist if you didn't.

Oh, Hojimachong, add egocentric to that (why do these people they think scientists are only out to get the Abrahamic religions?)

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Talk:Secular Science

2007-05-05T19:12:04Z

Stereophile:

Talk:Secular Science

2007-05-05T19:11:37Z

Stereophile:

Talk:Columbine High School Massacre

2007-04-18T01:09:05Z

Stereophile:

This article should be at "Columbine massacre". [[User:Human|Human]] 20:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'm fine (obviously) with "Columbine High School massacre". Thank you. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::I thought "Columbine massacre" may be a bit too ambiguous, since Columbines are also flowers. I wouldn't want someone to come and mistake this for "the flower massacre". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
==Anti-religious?==

Where in the sources does it say that the shooters where anti-religious or targetting specially christians? cant find any mention about that. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's common knowledge, but I'll go find a source to add authenticity. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:11, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah, I do seem to remember they asked one girl if she was a Christian before shooting her. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 20:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::That was Cassie Bernall. Sorry, I didn't see the Christianity part; that's a myth, they just wanted body count. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You sure? I remember reading in Newsweek about one killer asking a girl if she was a Christian before shooting her in the head. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::It's in the 2nd citation in the article.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 21:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edits Needed ==

Three edits are needed in order to improve this article. First off, the article indicates that "The killers were anti-religion, anti-establishment, antisocial, and anti-sports." While some or all of this statement may or may not be true, the cited article(s) don't indicate that any part of the statement is true, and in the sidebar even shows that neither was as outcast from their peers as much as portrayed in most renditions of the events. It goes to say that "They were not captains of the football team, but they were far more accepted than many of their schoolmates. They hung out with a tight circle of close friends and partied regularly on the weekend with a wider crowd." I think that this should either be removed or a source that properly and verifiably indicates the statement in question is correct.

Also, a large part of their plot was not only that they would gun down students, but also set off a series pipe bombs in and around the school, despite the failure of all the bombs to detonate.It is imperative that this segment is also added to the story, as it is a major part of the events of the columbine massacre. Included with this I believe it would be appropriate in the article to delve into more detail on the backround of the attack such as the past of both boys as well as the planning that was involved in them pulling it off.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 21:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)