Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Kangaroo

2007-03-13T06:54:10Z

Stof: /* Origins */

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Gray Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[Marsupials]] alive today. They currently are native to the continent of [[Australia]]. There are four different sub-kinds in the kangaroo [[baramin]]: the Western Gray Kangaroo, the Eastern Gray Kangaroo, the Red Kangaroo, and the Antilopine Kangaroo.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong and powerful, good for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivores]], eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Male kangaroos will go around the mob checking the females’ [[cloaca]]. Many times, males are rejected by the females because of size if they are small. In other cases, if a larger male is checking a female out, she may just move away. Sometimes, when a male is checking out a female, the female will urinate for the male, who will sniff the urine. Some studies show that this ritual is for the male to see if the female kangaroo is receptive to him or not.

If the female is responsive to the male, she raises her tail and the male will follow her. Sometimes the kangaroos will scratch each other’s tails or the male will give the female a back rub before mating. When the female is ready to mate she will arch her tail.

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weigh as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. They spend a lot of time in their mothers pouch developing. The Red Kangaroo joey will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Gray Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about a year.

==Origins==

According to the origins theory model used by [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the [[Middle East]]<ref>[http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-kangaroos_dinosaurs_and_eden.html "Kangaroos, Dinosaurs, and Eden"], Ken Ham.</ref> and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[apobaramin | apobaraminic]] or [[polybaramin | polybaraminic]].

Also according to creation science, after the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="ca1">[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html "How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as Australia?"], ChristianAnswers.net.</ref> -- as Australia was still for a time connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of [[Pangea]] broke apart<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/plate.asp "What about continental drift?"], Answers In Genesis</ref> -- or if they [[rafting (ecology) | rafted]] on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters.<ref name="ca1"/>

Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian [[aborigines]] that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "[[Dreamtime]]" <ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref>

These two creation stories contradict scientific evidence of evolution of the species, and should be take n as religious stories, as opposed to the scientific theory of evolution.<ref>http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html</ref>

== Footnotes ==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Africa

2007-03-13T06:49:45Z

Stof:

{{stub}}

Africa is the continent south of [[Europe]] and southwest of [[Asia]].
To minimize armed conflict the Europeans held the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885 to divide Africa among them, without regard to what the tribes of Africa wanted. Ethnic and cultural differences within Africa were also ignored, and lines of demarcation were arbitrarily drawn for the sole benefit of the European nations. All of Africa except for Ethiopia (which successful resisted Italian control in 1896) and Liberia where divided and taken by European nations.

One of Africa’s Biggest and wealthiest countries today is South Africa, located on the southern tip of the continent. It has a very advantageous location for trade routes by sea from Western Europe to India and the Far East. As a result, there was far more immigration by Europeans to South Africa than any other region of Africa, and whites of European ancestry completely ruled South Africa until the late 1900s. Since then, democracy has brought representative government to the African ethnic groups. The World Cup (soccer) will be played in 2010 in South Africa, the first time it has ever been held in Africa.

The Dutch (or Boers) were the first to establish a European settlement in southern Africa, at Cape Colony on the very southern tip in 1652. This port supplied ships on the way to the Indiana Ocean. The Dutch exploited the labor of African slaves and set up farming communities that displaced the native Africans. In the 1800s the British arrived and took over Cape Colony, and disfavored the continuation of the Dutch slavery system. The Dutch then moved inland, further north, in what is called the Great Trek. This created further conflict with the native Africans.

In the late 1800s, an African ethnic group known as the Zulus rose to power in southern Africa, led by a military African genius named Shaka. But his successors could not retain power. By 1887 the British, with better military technology, defeated the Zulus.

The Boer War broke out between the British and the Boers in 1899. The dispute was sparked by disagreements over land, access to diamonds and gold discovered in South Africa, and whether immigrants should have political rights. The British won this brutal war, and in 1902 established the Union of South Africa to include all the Boers republics. This country was controlled by the British but enjoyed some self-rule.

European imperialism on the African continent had both good and bad effects. On the good side, the Europeans brought advances in technology, built hospitals, and improved the infrastructure, such as railroads, telephones, telegraphs, sanitation and other public works. This improved trade and communications, and reduced disease. Europeans also built schools, but used them to teach European language and culture rather than respecting local traditions. Literacy did improve as a result, however. On the bad side, the Europeans displaced Africans from their individual farms and shifted them into working for European businesses. Africans lost control of their land and saw a reduction in their own food crops. Europeans also completely disrupted African cultural groups and village life, resulting in arbitrary geographical boundaries that continue to cause war and strife to this day.

==References==
Congo Free State Genocide[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm#Congo]

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-03-13T06:25:31Z

Stof:

Attempting to defend Coulter's statements just exposes the incredible bias and partisanship of this site. She made a ragingly stupid, offensive and derogatory statement. There is not doubt about what she said or what it means.

I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, it is important, for precisely the reason articulated below by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]. Coulter says the word "has nothing to do with gays." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I agree that it comes from British prep schools a century ago, the three-letter version anyway. More than a century ago, actually, as it appears throughout ''Tom Brown's Schooldays,'' published in 1857 and probably is derived from Hughes' experiences decades before. But I can only suppose that you have been deceived by the euphemistic way in which British prep schools have been described in literature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:

::::n. 1. A cigarette c1915 .... 2 A homosexual; an effeminate man.... Although [it use for cigarettes] may have reinforced the use of the word, [three-letter version], a boy servant or lackey has been common Eng. schoolboy use since before 1830, and may be the origin....

::::There is probably no way to be certain of the range of services traditionally provided by "boy servants or lackeys" in British prep schools. <s>Even Orwell's "Such, Such Were the Joys" is very elliptical on this point.</s> In "Such, Such Were the Joys" Orwell says "At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem," but is frank about its existence at St. Cyprians. He gives few details, saying that at that time he was in "an almost sexless state" and he does not use the word we're discussing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], If your source for "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century" is your own experience, all I can say is, not at the American school '''I''' attended in the 20th century. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I don't know. But the term was never meant to apply exclusively, or even primarily, as a slur against gays. Mayor Sharpe's use demonstrates that. It's more plausible that homosexuals adopted the term "faggot" just as they adopted the term "gay". A famous Alfred Hitchcock movie (1940s?) has a line where the actor describes San Francisco as "gay". That was not a slur, and the adoption of the term by the homosexual movement does not mean that everyone else must immediately abandon its traditional meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faggot Etymology] of the term, for anyone who's interested. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for the citation, which I've concluded. Does Sandbagger think the meaning of the word "niggardly" has now changed also? I've added that incident to this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't think the parallel is good. The meaning of "niggardly" is well-defined. The dictionary does not suggest that it is racial slur, or hint that it should be avoided because of its similarly in sound to a racial slur. The person who used it was almost certainly using it in good faith with its dictionary meaning (there's a possibility he was ''deliberately'' using it ''because'' it was similar in sound to a racial slur but I discount it). Those who objected to it were fools.

:: In the case of Ann Coulter's use of the word she used, the situation is not parallel. It is much hazier. Unlike "niggardly," the standard dictionary definition of the word '''is''' a reference to homosexuality. (I don't think anyone would argue that she was talking about a bundle of twigs). Coulter may have been going by the meaning of the word as she learned it at school. She very likely never looked it up in a dictionary. Her recollection of what the word meant in her school may be accurate—or may have reflected innocence on her part at the time. And in the intervening years she may never have heard the word used to mean "homosexual."

:: Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::: But Edwards isn't gay. So what do you think Coulter meant by the term, if not the ordinary schoolhouse usage? Do you think it is racist for one African American to use the "N" word to refer to another African American? I really don't see how there can be a gay slur against someone who isn't gay.

::: By the way, dictionaries are biased just like anything else. "Common Era" is in the dictionary now also, but we expressly reject the dictionary about that. Conservatives resist liberal attempts to change meanings of words to suit the liberal agenda.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
==Ann's next book==
Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference:
Ann's book publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, has no problems with Ann and is planning an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258370,00.html Coulter's Book Publisher Undeterred by Flap Over Remark About Gays] FoxNews.com</ref> [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
<references/>

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-13T06:16:28Z

Stof: The whole article

== Biased Line ==

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

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)

== 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

2007-03-13T02:20:54Z

Stof: /* Al Gore and politics */

'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. citation needed

== Al Gore and politics ==

This whole article is a raging joke.

Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is unanimity..<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

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. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> 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. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> 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.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

== The liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

== Evangelical view ==
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Ayn Rand

2007-03-13T01:32:41Z

Stof:

'''Ayn Rand''' (1905-1982) was a Russian-born philosopher, screenwriter, and novelist, who used her novels to promote her philosophy, known as [[Objectivism]]. Her best-known novels are ''Atlas Shrugged'' and ''The Fountainhead.'' Although her philosophy differs in many respects from [[Libertarianism]], it also emphasized invidual freedom, and her novels, particularly ''Atlas Shrugged,'' contain lectures that are considered touchstones for libertarian thinking.

Ayn's work is widely criticized for it's wildly ideological nature. Much of her material is misogynistic and homophobic, and her righting style turged at best.

Global warming

2007-03-13T00:48:50Z

Stof: /* The liberal view */

Global warming

2007-03-13T00:47:30Z

Stof: /* Al Gore and politics */

'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. citation needed

== The liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

== Evangelical view ==
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==

Conflicting opinions stem largely from conservative interest groups and have no basis in science or logic.

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-13T00:46:35Z

Stof: /* Conflicting Opinions/Data */

'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. citation needed

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is unanimity..<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

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. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> 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. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> 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.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

== The liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

== Evangelical view ==
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==

Conflicting opinions stem largely from conservative interest groups and have no basis in science or logic.

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Kangaroo

2007-03-12T23:56:35Z

Stof: /* Origins */