Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-05-05T04:42:56Z

TheNobleSith3: /* Problem With Top Image */

[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== 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! '''We 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)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused about the nature of this encyclopedia. Should a wiki-based encyclopedia be able to be edited by it's user community? Is the present system democratic? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 13:20, 14 December 2007 (GMT+1)
:As a general rule, yes it is edited by its community, but sometimes articles need to be locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::Could I ask why? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 01:26, 17 December 2007 (GMT+1)
::: In general (I'm not specifically talking about this article), two reasons would be repeated vandalism and edit wars. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:It's also worth pointing out that Pluto is so far out that any increase in warming there from the sun would effectively fry the Earth! This is basic astronomy. Let us not forget that planets are in elliptical orbits - not perfect circles - which take them closer to and then further away from the sun. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 06:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Controversy over the facts ==

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==

The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace

: Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no "November 23, 2003" issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro "example" of Gore "being wrong". There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see [http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2003- here]). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific", but used as a credible source in another, "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes"? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another? {{unsigned|Creationist}}
: I've not studied the particular references you make, but the general principle that if you must either reject or accept everything that someone or some group says is fallacious. There can be good reasons for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data, including some being factual research and the other being opinion, some being based on good research while the other is not, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC? I attempted to check the validity of the source used to discredit Gore's and the URL no longer exists. # ↑ http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. None of the references used in the section discrediting Gore are valid, since the URL's no longer exist.

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". {{unsigned|Gantczak}}

:I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. {{unsigned|Calebdelworth84}}

== Ed Poor ==

[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The [[Anthropogenic Global Warming]] (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out [[greenhouse gas]]es like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that [[natural forces]] account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for [[Kyoto Protocol]] or are partisan supporters of [[Democratic Party]] candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US [[federal funding]] is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==
In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
**This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work.
**It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

<blockquote>
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated. 

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising. 

'''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."''' 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. 

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.''' 

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." '''The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.''' 

'''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright. Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt. Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright. The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Are the images really necessary?==
Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with Ed... ==

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

== Needed Entry ==
In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}

*No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

*Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers ''think'' or ''believe'' or ''guess'' something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.
But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event. 
:We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

*Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, there are very few other things which we ''can'' blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.
:Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.
:The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).
:I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::If you know anything about [[solar variation]] and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how [[cosmic rays]] affect [[cloud cover]].

::As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.
:::The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.
:::It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.
:::However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.
:::I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Don't say ''it is believed'' when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a [[hypothesis]] or a [[theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::A small selection:
:::http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)
:::http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)
:::http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)
:::http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)
:::There are numerous others. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

: Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it.
:* Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying "in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture", but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days.
:* Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire", but the alleged "global warming" is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise?
:* The same goes for Malachi 4:1's "that shall burn as an oven". Or would you like to claim that we're in the "pre-heat" stage? [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)

:I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.

:First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.

:So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not "delay" the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the ''percentage'' (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO2, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO2. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.

:I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO2 absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO2 only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO2 absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb ''incoming'' radiation as well, which leads to global ''cooling'', not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!

:I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

::To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute.
::On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say "delay" because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!
:::As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T<~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest "trapped"). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. [[User:QBeam]]

:::Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this ''isn't'' what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the "doubling CO2 will cause X" mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that ''every'' doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::::One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating.

::::I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. [[User:QBeam]] 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT)

:::::First of all, how can you say "the models aren't built on first principles" if you've "never seen [any published] models?" (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are ''not'' based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they ''aren't'' using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.

:::::At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
::If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a "buzzword," even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I dunno, if it's buzzwords it sure fooled me (twice)! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Article is Thin ==

Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system.

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

*You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

== Request ==

Can somebody add [[:Category:Liberal Myths]]? Please and thank you, God bless. {{unsigned|RyanMiller}}
:It is not just liberals. Pat Robertson is on the boat, too! {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::Not to mention the reinsurance industry. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re - both huge businesses that insure insurance companies - have published numerous reports on the status of global warming, or rather global climate change as it should be referred to. If they're worried about this, I think that we should be too. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Millions of Years ==

I am a firm believer in the Bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old.

However, the article states, "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)."

This view is not consistent with the Bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the Bible? According to the Bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the Bible never mentioned one.

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

: Are you in the habit of not capitalizing [[Bible]]? Hope you don't mind my asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Are you in the habit of providing irrelevant comments? If it is your mission to correct everyone's grammar on this site, you have a long quest ahead of you. {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::I hope that you understand that there is difference between not capitalizing ''Bible'' and a common grammar error. This site is also frequently vandalized by atheists, it's normal that Mr.Schlafly is wary. Don't take it personally. Another point: please sign your posts with four 'tilde' ('~') characters, like this: [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I now realize my mistake in grammar and it has been corrected. In the normal course of my day, I usually do not type Bible and that is the root of my mistake. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 13:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

: I noticed that line there recently and wanted to change it, but couldn't quickly come up with an alternative. I don't think simply deleting the line is appropriate, because it is validly pointing out that the evidence (according to the secular view) is not consistent with the claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I agree and thanks with the explanation. The other point of view will help provide a neutral standpoint. I believe that most Christians, including myself, would not agree with that statement.

==Source of the gasses
The article needs to mention that carbion dioxide does not come from industry. There was a movie that showed it was from oceans.
I tried to add this but, the edit button is broken for this artical.

== Section about global warming's unfalsifiability ==

I'd like to add a section about how global warming advocates see everything as proof that global warming is happening - e.g. glaciers melting, glaciers growing, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, less frequent and weaker hurricanes, unusually warm winters, bitterly cold winters, etc. This is easily documented from news articles over the past few years. If everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it, then it is unfalsifiable and thus is an invalid scientific theory. Your thoughts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:I like the idea of a section pointing out the fact that everything these days seems to be related to global warming, but I think it's going too far to say that because various different people use different (seemingly) contradictory examples, that they all believe all of these examples, especially if many of them are from non-experts. Also, if GW ''were'' really happening, then you wouldn't be able to "disprove it", but that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. I think there's a subtle but important distinction there.

:I think you are on the right track, and a section about this would be interesting and enlightening, but you need to be extremely careful about your wording and what sources you use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Order of Article Items ==

I would humbly suggest that an Admin switch #1 with #2 - that is, put # 2 "The Modern Warm Period" first, then the #Controversy second. I think it would better convey the details about "global warming" before the controversy is discussed.

Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Science and opinion==

Position statements are not science. Saying that "X believes something" is unrelated to the truth of falsehood of that thing. Many individuals and organizations have made statements about [[global warming]], and it has become one of the most discussed political controversies of modern times.

[[Global warming theory]] has been used to justify [[wealth redistribution]], a pet project of [[Socialists]]. But this article is not about economic benefits. It's about the science of the world's climate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Problem With Top Image ==

The top image is inaccurate. No official predictions were made about global warming until 1992. Any predictions in 1980 would have been the work of a lone climatologist, and not the work of the scientific consensus. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Prove it. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The proof is in the fact that the IPCC (which is the only organization that had ever produced long range climate forecasts) was not created until 1988, as per their website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Who determines when a "prediction" is "official"? Or better yet, when. Just because a prediction happened to be wrong doesn't make it not official. Its evident that environmentalists are backpedaling. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'd assume it would be the organizations in charge of such efforts who determine when a prediction is official. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:01, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Exactly. There was no organization for predicting the climate until the IPCC (there are now several). Thus, any predictions made prior to that would have been the work of an independent forecaster, and would not have reflected the views of the overall scientific community. Also, even if there had been someone creating such forecasts at that time, that graph is inaccurate in the sense that the "predicted" line is linear, whereas the predicted increase in temperature is, and always has been, exponential. Thirdly, the graph itself is out of date. It only goes up to 1996. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 12:32, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:::You're welcome to find a "true" graph... if you can. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Why don't we just replace this graph with an image that actually represents the science of global warming? [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:42, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Michael Moore

2008-05-05T04:41:01Z

TheNobleSith3: No need to be blatantly contemptful

[[Image:Michael-Moore.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
'''Michael Moore''' (born April 23, 1954) is a [[liberal|left wing]], admitted [[Socialist]] filmmaker and [[Conspiracy Theorist]] who is critical of the US government, as can be seen in his reply to the question "You do not seem to like the U.S., do you?":
{{cquote|I like America to some extent. … Americans are simple and clear. They are charming people. You will understand how good an individual American is. What I am not satisfied with America is that the nation cannot control the government and economy. Only a handful of people have the power to control the country.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32174</ref>}}

==Manufacturing consent==
He is a hero in [[liberal]] Hollywood and to booksellers who tend to agree with his politics. Moore's films and commentaries are often based upon themes about alleged "capitalist" greed. Though a multi-millionaire, Moore frequently appears on television and in photos dressed like blue-collar workers with whom he attempts to identify.

Moore produced a movie portraying President [[George W. Bush]] as part of a massive conspiracy, named ''Fahrenheit 9/11''. Millions watched the movie, but many questioned its comparatively outlandish claims and Bush was reelected without ever dignifying the smear with a comment.<ref>http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/</ref>

Moore was the producer and host of the television series "The Awful Truth," which was typified by a type of sketch-comedy activism that was often directed against large corporations and government agencies. Later he produced "Bowling for Columbine."

Some of his other work includes the anti-corporation film ''Roger and Me'' and the books ''Dude, Where's my Country'', ''Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American'' and ''Stupid White Men''.

Moore also directed the anti-war music video for "Boom!" by [[System of a Down]], which was released to coincide with the beginning of the [[Iraq war]].

His production company which produces feature documentary-style films is Michael Moore Films.<ref>http://www.michaelmoore.com/</ref>

Michael Moore was the subject of the 2004 documentaries ''Michael Moore Hates America''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/</ref>, ''Fahrenhype 9/11''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/</ref> and the 2007 documentary ''Manufacturing Dissent''.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0961117/</ref> He was also the subject of books including ''Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man'' by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Moore-Big-Stupid-White/dp/0060779608/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174624100&sr=1-1</ref> and ''Forgive Us Our Spins: Michael Moore and the Future of the Left'' by Jesse Larner.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Forgive-Us-Our-Spins-Michael/dp/047179306X/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174623950&sr=8-1</ref>
[[Image:Moore html.jpg|right|thumb|Michael Moore, speaking|175px]]

== Sicko ==
As an ardent socialist, he is a staunch supporter of [[Cuba|Cuban]] dictator [[Fidel Castro]]<ref>http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080220/D8UUBU600.html</ref> and promotes the Castro regime's polices in his film, ''[[Sicko]]'', was released in late June 2007. In this "documentary" Moore argues for a nationalized health care system.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/</ref>

Kurt Loder of MTV news said of it:

<blockquote>
"Michael Moore may see himself as working in the tradition of such crusading muckrakers of the last century as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair — writers whose dedication to exposing corruption and social injustices played a part in sparking much-needed reforms. In his new movie, "Sicko," Moore focuses on the U.S. health-care industry — a juicy target — and he casts a shocking light on some of the people it's failed. 

Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18,000* people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools. The American health-care system is in urgent need of reform, no question. Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being either in-between jobs or young enough not to feel a pressing need to buy health insurance). There are a number of proposals as to what might be done to correct this situation. Moore has no use for any of them, save one. 

As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles). In the case of health care, though, Americans have never been keen on socialized medicine. In 1993, when one of Moore's heroes, Hillary Clinton (he actually blurts out the word "sexy!" in describing her in the movie), tried to create a government-controlled health care system, her failed attempt to do so helped deliver the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives into Republican control for the next dozen years. Moore still looks upon Clinton's plan as a grand idea, one that Americans, being not very bright, unwisely rejected. (He may be having second thoughts about Hillary herself, though: In the movie he heavily emphasizes the fact that, among politicians, she accepts the second-largest amount of political money from the health care industry.)"[http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml]
</blockquote>

==Earnings==
Michael Moore's films have exceeded $200,000,000.00. A breakdown for just the [[United States of America]] is below.

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center"|Michael Moore's Gross box office film earnings under the capitalist free market system<ref>[http://www.the-numbers.com/people/directors/MIMOO.php The Numbers]</ref>
|-
! Film
! U.S. Gross $
|-
| Roger & Me
|style="text-align:right"| $6,706,368
|-
| Canadian Bacon
|style="text-align:right"| $178,104
|-
| The Big One
|style="text-align:right"| $720,074
|-
| Bowling for Columbine
|style="text-align:right"| $21,576,018
|-
| Fahrenheit 9/11
|style="text-align:right"| $119,114,517
|-
| Sicko
|style="text-align:right"| $21,500,000
|-
| '''TOTAL'''
|style="text-align:right"| '''$169,795,081'''
|}

==Treasury investigation==
According to ''Reuters'' in June 2007, Moore is reported to have hidden assets in Canada in reaction to an official investigation. Moore was operating offshore in Cuba allegedly as a "journalistic endeavor." The United States Treasury Department does not confirm or deny the existence of investigations. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1119539820070613 Moore fears film seizure after Cuba trip], Michelle Nichols, ''Reuters'', June 12, 2007. </ref>

==Criticism==
'''[[Christopher Hitchens]]''' said of Fahrenheit 9/11, and Moore's work:
{{Cquote|'''To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental…Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery." '''<ref>[http://slate.com/id/2102723/ The lies of Michael Moore]. By Christopher Hitchens, //Slate'', June 21, 2004.</ref><ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/p_ibbetson/06092007.htm Michael Moore: A Criminal Profile], Paul A. Ibbetson, ''New Media Journal, June 9, 2007,</ref>}}

In 2004, Moore warned that if [[George W. Bush|Bush]] was re-elected as President: "...he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it - Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich."<ref>Moore, Michael [http://www.clark04.com/moore/ ''I'll Be Voting For Wesley Clark/Good-Bye Mr. Bush''] 14 January 2004; Clark for President site. Accessed 17 March 2008</ref> Over four years later, the draft had not been reintroduced.

Moore says that corporations are "terrorists" and has said "I don't own a single share of stock" but IRS records showed he owned at least several hundreds of thousand dollars in stocks in Pentagon contractors like Boeing, pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly, and even Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in ''Fahrenheit 9/11''.

Moore uses a private jet on his book tours and stays at the Ritz Carlton hotel when in [[London]], but conducts press interviews in a cheap hotel nearby to give reporters the impression he is staying there instead. Moore calls himself "an Average Joe from Flint, MI" and says, "Once you’re working class, you’re always working class". The reality is that hypocrite Moore lives a luxury-class lifestyle out of reach of most Flint residents.

Moore says that Americans who live in white neighborhoods are racist, but lives in a town (Central Lake, Michigan) which according to the 2000 Census, had a black population of zero.

==Wikipedia controversy==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]]]]
Michael Moore's official website [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] put an image and name of a [[Wikipedia]] editor on its main page with links to edit both Wikipedia's article on ''[[Sicko]]'' and the Wikipedia editor's user page. Wikipedia policy explicitly states,
:"A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages '''under any circumstances'''."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites]
Wikipedia Dispute Resolution policy stated aim is to "primarily investigate interpersonal disputes" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Scope] and not content disputes. Policy further states,
:"Links to attack sites may be removed by any user...Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site]
Wikipedia Conflict of interest policy states, "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, his family members, employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F] and "Campaigning. Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world... may have a conflict of interest."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#Examples]

Protection of Wikipedia editors from activities targeting editors for harassment also states,"Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Combatting_harassment], and finally, "It is unacceptable to harass another user."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Harrassment]

Unequivocally, Michael Moore's official website, michaelmoore.com, engaged in egregious violations of multiple Wikipedia policies warranting blocking of users from Michael Moore's website, and editors linking to it. Further, official Wikipedia policy states all links to Michael Moore’s website from Wikipedia must be removed.

In discussion of the case, harassment and intimidation of a Wikipedia editor was excused, whose expertise on the subject of healthcare was characterized as "an attorney, who is a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] think tank." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html] The interpersonal nature of the attack was ignored by Wikipedia's rule making body, in favor of,
:"a bunch of considerations. One is that ''Sicko'', finally, brings to public attention information which has not been generally presented by American media. This is right up our alley... we and whoever runs Moore's website look ridiculous. ..."

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] Wikipedia Arbitration Chairman stated,
:"Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support."

When asked what he learned from the Michael Moore experience, the Chairman said,
:"If a powerful [[leftwing]] celebrity attacks a [[rightwing]] Wikipedia editor on his website, his supporters on Wikipedia should be able, as a practical matter, to prevent removal of links to his site."

==See also==
*[[Schlockumentary]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Michael Moore|Articles about '''Michael Moore''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.racewire.org/archives/2007/07/moore_attacks_cnn_network_spew.html Moore attacks CNN network, spews anti-South Asian sentiments], ''RaceWire.org'', July 10, 2007.
*[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html WikiEN-l Harassment sites], Sun Oct 14 19:27:21 UTC 2007.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Moore, Michael}}
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:Anti-war Movements]]
[[category:propagandists]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]

Michael Moore

2008-05-05T04:29:25Z

TheNobleSith3: /* Earnings */

[[Image:Michael-Moore.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
'''Michael Moore''' (born April 23, 1954) is a [[liberal|left wing]], admitted [[Socialist]] filmmaker and [[Conspiracy Theorist]] who is critical of the US government, as can be seen in his reply to the question "You do not seem to like the U.S., do you?":
{{cquote|I like America to some extent. … Americans are simple and clear. They are charming people. You will understand how good an individual American is. What I am not satisfied with America is that the nation cannot control the government and economy. Only a handful of people have the power to control the country.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32174</ref>}}

==Manufacturing consent==
He is a hero in [[liberal]] Hollywood and to booksellers who tend to agree with his politics. Moore's films and commentaries are often based upon themes about alleged "capitalist" greed. Though a multi-millionaire, Moore frequently appears on television and in photos dressed like blue-collar workers with whom he attempts to identify.

Moore produced a movie portraying President [[George W. Bush]] as part of a massive conspiracy, named ''Fahrenheit 9/11''. Millions watched the movie, but many questioned its comparatively outlandish claims and Bush was reelected without ever dignifying the smear with a comment.<ref>http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/</ref>

Moore was the producer and host of the television series "The Awful Truth," which was typified by a type of sketch-comedy activism that was often directed against large corporations and government agencies. Later he produced "Bowling for Columbine."

Some of his other work includes the anti-corporation film ''Roger and Me'' and the books ''Dude, Where's my Country'', ''Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American'' and ''Stupid White Men''.

Moore also directed the anti-war music video for "Boom!" by [[System of a Down]], which was released to coincide with the beginning of the [[Iraq war]].

His production company which produces feature documentary-style films is Michael Moore Films.<ref>http://www.michaelmoore.com/</ref>

Michael Moore was the subject of the 2004 documentaries ''Michael Moore Hates America''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/</ref>, ''Fahrenhype 9/11''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/</ref> and the 2007 documentary ''Manufacturing Dissent''.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0961117/</ref> He was also the subject of books including ''Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man'' by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Moore-Big-Stupid-White/dp/0060779608/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174624100&sr=1-1</ref> and ''Forgive Us Our Spins: Michael Moore and the Future of the Left'' by Jesse Larner.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Forgive-Us-Our-Spins-Michael/dp/047179306X/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174623950&sr=8-1</ref>
[[Image:Moore html.jpg|right|thumb|Michael Moore, ranting|175px]]

== Sicko ==
As an ardent socialist, he is a staunch supporter of [[Cuba|Cuban]] dictator [[Fidel Castro]]<ref>http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080220/D8UUBU600.html</ref> and promotes the Castro regime's polices in his film, ''[[Sicko]]'', was released in late June 2007. In this "documentary" Moore argues for a nationalized health care system.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/</ref>

Kurt Loder of MTV news said of it:

<blockquote>
"Michael Moore may see himself as working in the tradition of such crusading muckrakers of the last century as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair — writers whose dedication to exposing corruption and social injustices played a part in sparking much-needed reforms. In his new movie, "Sicko," Moore focuses on the U.S. health-care industry — a juicy target — and he casts a shocking light on some of the people it's failed. 

Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18,000* people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools. The American health-care system is in urgent need of reform, no question. Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being either in-between jobs or young enough not to feel a pressing need to buy health insurance). There are a number of proposals as to what might be done to correct this situation. Moore has no use for any of them, save one. 

As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles). In the case of health care, though, Americans have never been keen on socialized medicine. In 1993, when one of Moore's heroes, Hillary Clinton (he actually blurts out the word "sexy!" in describing her in the movie), tried to create a government-controlled health care system, her failed attempt to do so helped deliver the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives into Republican control for the next dozen years. Moore still looks upon Clinton's plan as a grand idea, one that Americans, being not very bright, unwisely rejected. (He may be having second thoughts about Hillary herself, though: In the movie he heavily emphasizes the fact that, among politicians, she accepts the second-largest amount of political money from the health care industry.)"[http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml]
</blockquote>

==Earnings==
Michael Moore's films have exceeded $200,000,000.00. A breakdown for just the [[United States of America]] is below.

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center"|Michael Moore's Gross box office film earnings under the capitalist free market system<ref>[http://www.the-numbers.com/people/directors/MIMOO.php The Numbers]</ref>
|-
! Film
! U.S. Gross $
|-
| Roger & Me
|style="text-align:right"| $6,706,368
|-
| Canadian Bacon
|style="text-align:right"| $178,104
|-
| The Big One
|style="text-align:right"| $720,074
|-
| Bowling for Columbine
|style="text-align:right"| $21,576,018
|-
| Fahrenheit 9/11
|style="text-align:right"| $119,114,517
|-
| Sicko
|style="text-align:right"| $21,500,000
|-
| '''TOTAL'''
|style="text-align:right"| '''$169,795,081'''
|}

==Treasury investigation==
According to ''Reuters'' in June 2007, Moore is reported to have hidden assets in Canada in reaction to an official investigation. Moore was operating offshore in Cuba allegedly as a "journalistic endeavor." The United States Treasury Department does not confirm or deny the existence of investigations. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1119539820070613 Moore fears film seizure after Cuba trip], Michelle Nichols, ''Reuters'', June 12, 2007. </ref>

==Criticism==
'''[[Christopher Hitchens]]''' said of Fahrenheit 9/11, and Moore's work:
{{Cquote|'''To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental…Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery." '''<ref>[http://slate.com/id/2102723/ The lies of Michael Moore]. By Christopher Hitchens, //Slate'', June 21, 2004.</ref><ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/p_ibbetson/06092007.htm Michael Moore: A Criminal Profile], Paul A. Ibbetson, ''New Media Journal, June 9, 2007,</ref>}}

In 2004, Moore warned that if [[George W. Bush|Bush]] was re-elected as President: "...he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it - Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich."<ref>Moore, Michael [http://www.clark04.com/moore/ ''I'll Be Voting For Wesley Clark/Good-Bye Mr. Bush''] 14 January 2004; Clark for President site. Accessed 17 March 2008</ref> Over four years later, the draft had not been reintroduced.

Moore says that corporations are "terrorists" and has said "I don't own a single share of stock" but IRS records showed he owned at least several hundreds of thousand dollars in stocks in Pentagon contractors like Boeing, pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly, and even Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in ''Fahrenheit 9/11''.

Moore uses a private jet on his book tours and stays at the Ritz Carlton hotel when in [[London]], but conducts press interviews in a cheap hotel nearby to give reporters the impression he is staying there instead. Moore calls himself "an Average Joe from Flint, MI" and says, "Once you’re working class, you’re always working class". The reality is that hypocrite Moore lives a luxury-class lifestyle out of reach of most Flint residents.

Moore says that Americans who live in white neighborhoods are racist, but lives in a town (Central Lake, Michigan) which according to the 2000 Census, had a black population of zero.

==Wikipedia controversy==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]]]]
Michael Moore's official website [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] put an image and name of a [[Wikipedia]] editor on its main page with links to edit both Wikipedia's article on ''[[Sicko]]'' and the Wikipedia editor's user page. Wikipedia policy explicitly states,
:"A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages '''under any circumstances'''."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites]
Wikipedia Dispute Resolution policy stated aim is to "primarily investigate interpersonal disputes" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Scope] and not content disputes. Policy further states,
:"Links to attack sites may be removed by any user...Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site]
Wikipedia Conflict of interest policy states, "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, his family members, employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F] and "Campaigning. Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world... may have a conflict of interest."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#Examples]

Protection of Wikipedia editors from activities targeting editors for harassment also states,"Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Combatting_harassment], and finally, "It is unacceptable to harass another user."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Harrassment]

Unequivocally, Michael Moore's official website, michaelmoore.com, engaged in egregious violations of multiple Wikipedia policies warranting blocking of users from Michael Moore's website, and editors linking to it. Further, official Wikipedia policy states all links to Michael Moore’s website from Wikipedia must be removed.

In discussion of the case, harassment and intimidation of a Wikipedia editor was excused, whose expertise on the subject of healthcare was characterized as "an attorney, who is a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] think tank." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html] The interpersonal nature of the attack was ignored by Wikipedia's rule making body, in favor of,
:"a bunch of considerations. One is that ''Sicko'', finally, brings to public attention information which has not been generally presented by American media. This is right up our alley... we and whoever runs Moore's website look ridiculous. ..."

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] Wikipedia Arbitration Chairman stated,
:"Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support."

When asked what he learned from the Michael Moore experience, the Chairman said,
:"If a powerful [[leftwing]] celebrity attacks a [[rightwing]] Wikipedia editor on his website, his supporters on Wikipedia should be able, as a practical matter, to prevent removal of links to his site."

==See also==
*[[Schlockumentary]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Michael Moore|Articles about '''Michael Moore''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.racewire.org/archives/2007/07/moore_attacks_cnn_network_spew.html Moore attacks CNN network, spews anti-South Asian sentiments], ''RaceWire.org'', July 10, 2007.
*[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html WikiEN-l Harassment sites], Sun Oct 14 19:27:21 UTC 2007.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Moore, Michael}}
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:Anti-war Movements]]
[[category:propagandists]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]

Michael Moore

2008-05-05T04:29:14Z

TheNobleSith3: /* Earnings */

[[Image:Michael-Moore.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
'''Michael Moore''' (born April 23, 1954) is a [[liberal|left wing]], admitted [[Socialist]] filmmaker and [[Conspiracy Theorist]] who is critical of the US government, as can be seen in his reply to the question "You do not seem to like the U.S., do you?":
{{cquote|I like America to some extent. … Americans are simple and clear. They are charming people. You will understand how good an individual American is. What I am not satisfied with America is that the nation cannot control the government and economy. Only a handful of people have the power to control the country.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32174</ref>}}

==Manufacturing consent==
He is a hero in [[liberal]] Hollywood and to booksellers who tend to agree with his politics. Moore's films and commentaries are often based upon themes about alleged "capitalist" greed. Though a multi-millionaire, Moore frequently appears on television and in photos dressed like blue-collar workers with whom he attempts to identify.

Moore produced a movie portraying President [[George W. Bush]] as part of a massive conspiracy, named ''Fahrenheit 9/11''. Millions watched the movie, but many questioned its comparatively outlandish claims and Bush was reelected without ever dignifying the smear with a comment.<ref>http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/</ref>

Moore was the producer and host of the television series "The Awful Truth," which was typified by a type of sketch-comedy activism that was often directed against large corporations and government agencies. Later he produced "Bowling for Columbine."

Some of his other work includes the anti-corporation film ''Roger and Me'' and the books ''Dude, Where's my Country'', ''Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American'' and ''Stupid White Men''.

Moore also directed the anti-war music video for "Boom!" by [[System of a Down]], which was released to coincide with the beginning of the [[Iraq war]].

His production company which produces feature documentary-style films is Michael Moore Films.<ref>http://www.michaelmoore.com/</ref>

Michael Moore was the subject of the 2004 documentaries ''Michael Moore Hates America''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411646/</ref>, ''Fahrenhype 9/11''<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427228/</ref> and the 2007 documentary ''Manufacturing Dissent''.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0961117/</ref> He was also the subject of books including ''Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man'' by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Moore-Big-Stupid-White/dp/0060779608/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174624100&sr=1-1</ref> and ''Forgive Us Our Spins: Michael Moore and the Future of the Left'' by Jesse Larner.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Forgive-Us-Our-Spins-Michael/dp/047179306X/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2466588-5816760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174623950&sr=8-1</ref>
[[Image:Moore html.jpg|right|thumb|Michael Moore, ranting|175px]]

== Sicko ==
As an ardent socialist, he is a staunch supporter of [[Cuba|Cuban]] dictator [[Fidel Castro]]<ref>http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080220/D8UUBU600.html</ref> and promotes the Castro regime's polices in his film, ''[[Sicko]]'', was released in late June 2007. In this "documentary" Moore argues for a nationalized health care system.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/</ref>

Kurt Loder of MTV news said of it:

<blockquote>
"Michael Moore may see himself as working in the tradition of such crusading muckrakers of the last century as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair — writers whose dedication to exposing corruption and social injustices played a part in sparking much-needed reforms. In his new movie, "Sicko," Moore focuses on the U.S. health-care industry — a juicy target — and he casts a shocking light on some of the people it's failed. 

Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film. His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18,000* people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools. The American health-care system is in urgent need of reform, no question. Some 47 million people are uninsured (although many are only temporarily so, being either in-between jobs or young enough not to feel a pressing need to buy health insurance). There are a number of proposals as to what might be done to correct this situation. Moore has no use for any of them, save one. 

As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles). In the case of health care, though, Americans have never been keen on socialized medicine. In 1993, when one of Moore's heroes, Hillary Clinton (he actually blurts out the word "sexy!" in describing her in the movie), tried to create a government-controlled health care system, her failed attempt to do so helped deliver the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives into Republican control for the next dozen years. Moore still looks upon Clinton's plan as a grand idea, one that Americans, being not very bright, unwisely rejected. (He may be having second thoughts about Hillary herself, though: In the movie he heavily emphasizes the fact that, among politicians, she accepts the second-largest amount of political money from the health care industry.)"[http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml]
</blockquote>

==Earnings==
Michael Moore's films have exceded $200,000,000.00. A breakdown for just the [[United States of America]] is below.

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center"|Michael Moore's Gross box office film earnings under the capitalist free market system<ref>[http://www.the-numbers.com/people/directors/MIMOO.php The Numbers]</ref>
|-
! Film
! U.S. Gross $
|-
| Roger & Me
|style="text-align:right"| $6,706,368
|-
| Canadian Bacon
|style="text-align:right"| $178,104
|-
| The Big One
|style="text-align:right"| $720,074
|-
| Bowling for Columbine
|style="text-align:right"| $21,576,018
|-
| Fahrenheit 9/11
|style="text-align:right"| $119,114,517
|-
| Sicko
|style="text-align:right"| $21,500,000
|-
| '''TOTAL'''
|style="text-align:right"| '''$169,795,081'''
|}

==Treasury investigation==
According to ''Reuters'' in June 2007, Moore is reported to have hidden assets in Canada in reaction to an official investigation. Moore was operating offshore in Cuba allegedly as a "journalistic endeavor." The United States Treasury Department does not confirm or deny the existence of investigations. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1119539820070613 Moore fears film seizure after Cuba trip], Michelle Nichols, ''Reuters'', June 12, 2007. </ref>

==Criticism==
'''[[Christopher Hitchens]]''' said of Fahrenheit 9/11, and Moore's work:
{{Cquote|'''To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental…Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery." '''<ref>[http://slate.com/id/2102723/ The lies of Michael Moore]. By Christopher Hitchens, //Slate'', June 21, 2004.</ref><ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/p_ibbetson/06092007.htm Michael Moore: A Criminal Profile], Paul A. Ibbetson, ''New Media Journal, June 9, 2007,</ref>}}

In 2004, Moore warned that if [[George W. Bush|Bush]] was re-elected as President: "...he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it - Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich."<ref>Moore, Michael [http://www.clark04.com/moore/ ''I'll Be Voting For Wesley Clark/Good-Bye Mr. Bush''] 14 January 2004; Clark for President site. Accessed 17 March 2008</ref> Over four years later, the draft had not been reintroduced.

Moore says that corporations are "terrorists" and has said "I don't own a single share of stock" but IRS records showed he owned at least several hundreds of thousand dollars in stocks in Pentagon contractors like Boeing, pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly, and even Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in ''Fahrenheit 9/11''.

Moore uses a private jet on his book tours and stays at the Ritz Carlton hotel when in [[London]], but conducts press interviews in a cheap hotel nearby to give reporters the impression he is staying there instead. Moore calls himself "an Average Joe from Flint, MI" and says, "Once you’re working class, you’re always working class". The reality is that hypocrite Moore lives a luxury-class lifestyle out of reach of most Flint residents.

Moore says that Americans who live in white neighborhoods are racist, but lives in a town (Central Lake, Michigan) which according to the 2000 Census, had a black population of zero.

==Wikipedia controversy==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]]]]
Michael Moore's official website [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] put an image and name of a [[Wikipedia]] editor on its main page with links to edit both Wikipedia's article on ''[[Sicko]]'' and the Wikipedia editor's user page. Wikipedia policy explicitly states,
:"A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages '''under any circumstances'''."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites]
Wikipedia Dispute Resolution policy stated aim is to "primarily investigate interpersonal disputes" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Scope] and not content disputes. Policy further states,
:"Links to attack sites may be removed by any user...Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site]
Wikipedia Conflict of interest policy states, "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, his family members, employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F] and "Campaigning. Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world... may have a conflict of interest."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#Examples]

Protection of Wikipedia editors from activities targeting editors for harassment also states,"Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Combatting_harassment], and finally, "It is unacceptable to harass another user."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Harrassment]

Unequivocally, Michael Moore's official website, michaelmoore.com, engaged in egregious violations of multiple Wikipedia policies warranting blocking of users from Michael Moore's website, and editors linking to it. Further, official Wikipedia policy states all links to Michael Moore’s website from Wikipedia must be removed.

In discussion of the case, harassment and intimidation of a Wikipedia editor was excused, whose expertise on the subject of healthcare was characterized as "an attorney, who is a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] think tank." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html] The interpersonal nature of the attack was ignored by Wikipedia's rule making body, in favor of,
:"a bunch of considerations. One is that ''Sicko'', finally, brings to public attention information which has not been generally presented by American media. This is right up our alley... we and whoever runs Moore's website look ridiculous. ..."

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] Wikipedia Arbitration Chairman stated,
:"Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support."

When asked what he learned from the Michael Moore experience, the Chairman said,
:"If a powerful [[leftwing]] celebrity attacks a [[rightwing]] Wikipedia editor on his website, his supporters on Wikipedia should be able, as a practical matter, to prevent removal of links to his site."

==See also==
*[[Schlockumentary]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Michael Moore|Articles about '''Michael Moore''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.racewire.org/archives/2007/07/moore_attacks_cnn_network_spew.html Moore attacks CNN network, spews anti-South Asian sentiments], ''RaceWire.org'', July 10, 2007.
*[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html WikiEN-l Harassment sites], Sun Oct 14 19:27:21 UTC 2007.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Moore, Michael}}
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:Anti-war Movements]]
[[category:propagandists]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-05-04T16:33:11Z

TheNobleSith3: /* Problem With Top Image */

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-05-04T16:32:33Z

TheNobleSith3: /* Problem With Top Image */

[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== 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! '''We 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)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused about the nature of this encyclopedia. Should a wiki-based encyclopedia be able to be edited by it's user community? Is the present system democratic? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 13:20, 14 December 2007 (GMT+1)
:As a general rule, yes it is edited by its community, but sometimes articles need to be locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::Could I ask why? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 01:26, 17 December 2007 (GMT+1)
::: In general (I'm not specifically talking about this article), two reasons would be repeated vandalism and edit wars. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:It's also worth pointing out that Pluto is so far out that any increase in warming there from the sun would effectively fry the Earth! This is basic astronomy. Let us not forget that planets are in elliptical orbits - not perfect circles - which take them closer to and then further away from the sun. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 06:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Controversy over the facts ==

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==

The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace

: Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no "November 23, 2003" issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro "example" of Gore "being wrong". There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see [http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2003- here]). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific", but used as a credible source in another, "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes"? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another? {{unsigned|Creationist}}
: I've not studied the particular references you make, but the general principle that if you must either reject or accept everything that someone or some group says is fallacious. There can be good reasons for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data, including some being factual research and the other being opinion, some being based on good research while the other is not, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC? I attempted to check the validity of the source used to discredit Gore's and the URL no longer exists. # ↑ http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. None of the references used in the section discrediting Gore are valid, since the URL's no longer exist.

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". {{unsigned|Gantczak}}

:I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. {{unsigned|Calebdelworth84}}

== Ed Poor ==

[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The [[Anthropogenic Global Warming]] (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out [[greenhouse gas]]es like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that [[natural forces]] account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for [[Kyoto Protocol]] or are partisan supporters of [[Democratic Party]] candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US [[federal funding]] is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==
In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
**This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work.
**It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

<blockquote>
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated. 

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising. 

'''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."''' 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. 

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.''' 

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." '''The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.''' 

'''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright. Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt. Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright. The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Are the images really necessary?==
Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with Ed... ==

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

== Needed Entry ==
In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}

*No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

*Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers ''think'' or ''believe'' or ''guess'' something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.
But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event. 
:We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

*Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, there are very few other things which we ''can'' blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.
:Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.
:The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).
:I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::If you know anything about [[solar variation]] and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how [[cosmic rays]] affect [[cloud cover]].

::As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.
:::The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.
:::It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.
:::However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.
:::I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Don't say ''it is believed'' when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a [[hypothesis]] or a [[theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::A small selection:
:::http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)
:::http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)
:::http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)
:::http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)
:::There are numerous others. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

: Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it.
:* Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying "in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture", but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days.
:* Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire", but the alleged "global warming" is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise?
:* The same goes for Malachi 4:1's "that shall burn as an oven". Or would you like to claim that we're in the "pre-heat" stage? [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)

:I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.

:First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.

:So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not "delay" the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the ''percentage'' (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO2, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO2. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.

:I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO2 absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO2 only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO2 absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb ''incoming'' radiation as well, which leads to global ''cooling'', not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!

:I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

::To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute.
::On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say "delay" because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!
:::As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T<~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest "trapped"). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. [[User:QBeam]]

:::Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this ''isn't'' what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the "doubling CO2 will cause X" mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that ''every'' doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::::One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating.

::::I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. [[User:QBeam]] 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT)

:::::First of all, how can you say "the models aren't built on first principles" if you've "never seen [any published] models?" (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are ''not'' based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they ''aren't'' using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.

:::::At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
::If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a "buzzword," even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I dunno, if it's buzzwords it sure fooled me (twice)! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Article is Thin ==

Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system.

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

*You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

== Request ==

Can somebody add [[:Category:Liberal Myths]]? Please and thank you, God bless. {{unsigned|RyanMiller}}
:It is not just liberals. Pat Robertson is on the boat, too! {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::Not to mention the reinsurance industry. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re - both huge businesses that insure insurance companies - have published numerous reports on the status of global warming, or rather global climate change as it should be referred to. If they're worried about this, I think that we should be too. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Millions of Years ==

I am a firm believer in the Bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old.

However, the article states, "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)."

This view is not consistent with the Bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the Bible? According to the Bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the Bible never mentioned one.

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

: Are you in the habit of not capitalizing [[Bible]]? Hope you don't mind my asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Are you in the habit of providing irrelevant comments? If it is your mission to correct everyone's grammar on this site, you have a long quest ahead of you. {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::I hope that you understand that there is difference between not capitalizing ''Bible'' and a common grammar error. This site is also frequently vandalized by atheists, it's normal that Mr.Schlafly is wary. Don't take it personally. Another point: please sign your posts with four 'tilde' ('~') characters, like this: [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I now realize my mistake in grammar and it has been corrected. In the normal course of my day, I usually do not type Bible and that is the root of my mistake. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 13:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

: I noticed that line there recently and wanted to change it, but couldn't quickly come up with an alternative. I don't think simply deleting the line is appropriate, because it is validly pointing out that the evidence (according to the secular view) is not consistent with the claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I agree and thanks with the explanation. The other point of view will help provide a neutral standpoint. I believe that most Christians, including myself, would not agree with that statement.

==Source of the gasses
The article needs to mention that carbion dioxide does not come from industry. There was a movie that showed it was from oceans.
I tried to add this but, the edit button is broken for this artical.

== Section about global warming's unfalsifiability ==

I'd like to add a section about how global warming advocates see everything as proof that global warming is happening - e.g. glaciers melting, glaciers growing, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, less frequent and weaker hurricanes, unusually warm winters, bitterly cold winters, etc. This is easily documented from news articles over the past few years. If everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it, then it is unfalsifiable and thus is an invalid scientific theory. Your thoughts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:I like the idea of a section pointing out the fact that everything these days seems to be related to global warming, but I think it's going too far to say that because various different people use different (seemingly) contradictory examples, that they all believe all of these examples, especially if many of them are from non-experts. Also, if GW ''were'' really happening, then you wouldn't be able to "disprove it", but that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. I think there's a subtle but important distinction there.

:I think you are on the right track, and a section about this would be interesting and enlightening, but you need to be extremely careful about your wording and what sources you use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Order of Article Items ==

I would humbly suggest that an Admin switch #1 with #2 - that is, put # 2 "The Modern Warm Period" first, then the #Controversy second. I think it would better convey the details about "global warming" before the controversy is discussed.

Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Science and opinion==

Position statements are not science. Saying that "X believes something" is unrelated to the truth of falsehood of that thing. Many individuals and organizations have made statements about [[global warming]], and it has become one of the most discussed political controversies of modern times.

[[Global warming theory]] has been used to justify [[wealth redistribution]], a pet project of [[Socialists]]. But this article is not about economic benefits. It's about the science of the world's climate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Problem With Top Image ==

The top image is inaccurate. No official predictions were made about global warming until 1992. Any predictions in 1980 would have been the work of a lone climatologist, and not the work of the scientific consensus. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Prove it. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The proof is in the fact that the IPCC (which is the only organization that had ever produced long range climate forecasts) was not created until 1988, as per their website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:Who determines when a "prediction" is "official"? Or better yet, when. Just because a prediction happened to be wrong doesn't make it not official. Its evident that environmentalists are backpedaling. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::I'd assume it would be the organizations in charge of such efforts who determine when a prediction is official. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:01, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::Exactly. There was no organization for predicting the climate until the IPCC (there are now several). Thus, any predictions made prior to that would have been the work of an independent forecaster, and would not have reflected the views of the overall scientific community. Also, even if there had been someone creating such forecasts at that time, that graph is inaccurate in the sense that the "predicted" line is linear, whereas the predicted increase in temperature is, and always has been, exponential. Secondly, the graph itself is out of date. It only goes up to 1996. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 12:32, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?

2008-05-03T17:19:24Z

TheNobleSith3: /* No */

Well, I'll come out clearly and say that I'm against any book banning, but I think it would be a topic for a lively discussion so I place it before you and eagerly await your opinions.

==No==

No, a library is a place that categorizes knowledge, even obscene or unpopular knowledge. Banning books from libraries is tantamount to censorship. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Censorship is a liberal concept, and thus I do not believe in it. It is an attempt to create conformity among the youth of our nation. -[[User:BMoore|BMoore]] 02:10, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

: Actually censorship is generally incompatible with liberalism. True liberalism holds that the individual ought be allowed the maximum possible freedom so long as the exercise of such freedom does not impinge on the freedom of others. Censorship is something more often associated with religiously motivated groups and totalitarian societies. That being said, liberalism would allow for censorship of books which could cause harm. I would think that bomb making books might fall into that category for example. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 02:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

::Differing use of terms, Leopold. Most here, I think, would refer to that philosophy as "Libertarianism"--though some might agree with you that it's closely related to liberalism. I see it as a very conservative philosophy, in that it is essentially the philosophy of many of the Founding Fathers.

::That being said, censorship occurs for many reasons. Certainly, there have been instances where conservative Christians called for censorship of materials they considered to be offensive or spiritually dangerous; the Harry Potter books spring to mind immediately. On the other hand, we have the ad nauseam attempts to censor, say, ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it contains offensive words--completely ignoring the fact that the book uses those words in a historical context to teach a valuable lesson.

::--[[User:BenP|BenP]] 10:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Good points from both of you guys, although I'd like to know exactly how liberals cry for censorship? I never hear any of them saying how certain movies, books, or songs should be banned. Well, actually it does occur occasionally, so perhaps more accurately I should say liberals censor much less than conservatives. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 13:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==Yes==

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-05-03T04:33:28Z

TheNobleSith3: /* Problem With Top Image */

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-05-03T04:32:58Z

TheNobleSith3: /* Problem With Top Image */

[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== 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! '''We 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)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused about the nature of this encyclopedia. Should a wiki-based encyclopedia be able to be edited by it's user community? Is the present system democratic? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 13:20, 14 December 2007 (GMT+1)
:As a general rule, yes it is edited by its community, but sometimes articles need to be locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::Could I ask why? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 01:26, 17 December 2007 (GMT+1)
::: In general (I'm not specifically talking about this article), two reasons would be repeated vandalism and edit wars. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:It's also worth pointing out that Pluto is so far out that any increase in warming there from the sun would effectively fry the Earth! This is basic astronomy. Let us not forget that planets are in elliptical orbits - not perfect circles - which take them closer to and then further away from the sun. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 06:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Controversy over the facts ==

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==

The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace

: Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no "November 23, 2003" issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro "example" of Gore "being wrong". There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see [http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2003- here]). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific", but used as a credible source in another, "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes"? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another? {{unsigned|Creationist}}
: I've not studied the particular references you make, but the general principle that if you must either reject or accept everything that someone or some group says is fallacious. There can be good reasons for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data, including some being factual research and the other being opinion, some being based on good research while the other is not, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC? I attempted to check the validity of the source used to discredit Gore's and the URL no longer exists. # ↑ http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. None of the references used in the section discrediting Gore are valid, since the URL's no longer exist.

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". {{unsigned|Gantczak}}

:I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. {{unsigned|Calebdelworth84}}

== Ed Poor ==

[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The [[Anthropogenic Global Warming]] (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out [[greenhouse gas]]es like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that [[natural forces]] account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for [[Kyoto Protocol]] or are partisan supporters of [[Democratic Party]] candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US [[federal funding]] is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==
In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
**This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work.
**It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

<blockquote>
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated. 

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising. 

'''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."''' 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. 

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.''' 

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." '''The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.''' 

'''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright. Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt. Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright. The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Are the images really necessary?==
Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with Ed... ==

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

== Needed Entry ==
In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}

*No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

*Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers ''think'' or ''believe'' or ''guess'' something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.
But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event. 
:We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

*Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, there are very few other things which we ''can'' blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.
:Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.
:The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).
:I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::If you know anything about [[solar variation]] and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how [[cosmic rays]] affect [[cloud cover]].

::As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.
:::The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.
:::It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.
:::However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.
:::I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Don't say ''it is believed'' when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a [[hypothesis]] or a [[theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::A small selection:
:::http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)
:::http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)
:::http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)
:::http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)
:::There are numerous others. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

: Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it.
:* Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying "in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture", but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days.
:* Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire", but the alleged "global warming" is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise?
:* The same goes for Malachi 4:1's "that shall burn as an oven". Or would you like to claim that we're in the "pre-heat" stage? [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)

:I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.

:First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.

:So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not "delay" the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the ''percentage'' (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO2, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO2. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.

:I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO2 absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO2 only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO2 absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb ''incoming'' radiation as well, which leads to global ''cooling'', not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!

:I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

::To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute.
::On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say "delay" because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!
:::As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T<~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest "trapped"). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. [[User:QBeam]]

:::Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this ''isn't'' what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the "doubling CO2 will cause X" mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that ''every'' doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::::One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating.

::::I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. [[User:QBeam]] 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT)

:::::First of all, how can you say "the models aren't built on first principles" if you've "never seen [any published] models?" (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are ''not'' based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they ''aren't'' using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.

:::::At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
::If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a "buzzword," even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I dunno, if it's buzzwords it sure fooled me (twice)! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Article is Thin ==

Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system.

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

*You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

== Request ==

Can somebody add [[:Category:Liberal Myths]]? Please and thank you, God bless. {{unsigned|RyanMiller}}
:It is not just liberals. Pat Robertson is on the boat, too! {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::Not to mention the reinsurance industry. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re - both huge businesses that insure insurance companies - have published numerous reports on the status of global warming, or rather global climate change as it should be referred to. If they're worried about this, I think that we should be too. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Millions of Years ==

I am a firm believer in the Bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old.

However, the article states, "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)."

This view is not consistent with the Bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the Bible? According to the Bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the Bible never mentioned one.

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

: Are you in the habit of not capitalizing [[Bible]]? Hope you don't mind my asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Are you in the habit of providing irrelevant comments? If it is your mission to correct everyone's grammar on this site, you have a long quest ahead of you. {{unsigned|Creationist}}

::I hope that you understand that there is difference between not capitalizing ''Bible'' and a common grammar error. This site is also frequently vandalized by atheists, it's normal that Mr.Schlafly is wary. Don't take it personally. Another point: please sign your posts with four 'tilde' ('~') characters, like this: [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)

I now realize my mistake in grammar and it has been corrected. In the normal course of my day, I usually do not type Bible and that is the root of my mistake. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 13:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

: I noticed that line there recently and wanted to change it, but couldn't quickly come up with an alternative. I don't think simply deleting the line is appropriate, because it is validly pointing out that the evidence (according to the secular view) is not consistent with the claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)

I agree and thanks with the explanation. The other point of view will help provide a neutral standpoint. I believe that most Christians, including myself, would not agree with that statement.

==Source of the gasses
The article needs to mention that carbion dioxide does not come from industry. There was a movie that showed it was from oceans.
I tried to add this but, the edit button is broken for this artical.

== Section about global warming's unfalsifiability ==

I'd like to add a section about how global warming advocates see everything as proof that global warming is happening - e.g. glaciers melting, glaciers growing, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, less frequent and weaker hurricanes, unusually warm winters, bitterly cold winters, etc. This is easily documented from news articles over the past few years. If everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it, then it is unfalsifiable and thus is an invalid scientific theory. Your thoughts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:I like the idea of a section pointing out the fact that everything these days seems to be related to global warming, but I think it's going too far to say that because various different people use different (seemingly) contradictory examples, that they all believe all of these examples, especially if many of them are from non-experts. Also, if GW ''were'' really happening, then you wouldn't be able to "disprove it", but that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. I think there's a subtle but important distinction there.

:I think you are on the right track, and a section about this would be interesting and enlightening, but you need to be extremely careful about your wording and what sources you use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== Order of Article Items ==

I would humbly suggest that an Admin switch #1 with #2 - that is, put # 2 "The Modern Warm Period" first, then the #Controversy second. I think it would better convey the details about "global warming" before the controversy is discussed.

Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

==Science and opinion==

Position statements are not science. Saying that "X believes something" is unrelated to the truth of falsehood of that thing. Many individuals and organizations have made statements about [[global warming]], and it has become one of the most discussed political controversies of modern times.

[[Global warming theory]] has been used to justify [[wealth redistribution]], a pet project of [[Socialists]]. But this article is not about economic benefits. It's about the science of the world's climate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Problem With Top Image ==

The top image is inaccurate. No official predictions were made about global warming until 1992. Any predictions in 1980 would have been the work of a lone climatologist, and not the work of the scientific consensus. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Prove it. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The proof is in the fact that the IPCC (which is the only organization that had ever produced long range climate forecasts) was not created until 1990, as per their website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?

2008-05-03T04:08:56Z

TheNobleSith3: /* No */

Talk:Science of global warming

2008-05-03T04:05:23Z

TheNobleSith3: Problem With Top Image

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-05-03T04:01:51Z

TheNobleSith3: /* Lapel pin */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]

==Second Picture's caption==
The caption on the second picture should read "...during the national anthem." Also, I believe the picture was taken from here: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html. [[User:Shiritai|Shiritai]] 08:21, 7 November 2007 (EST)

People should also be aware that placing one's hand over their heart is required only for the pledge of allegiance, it is not required when one hears the star spangled banner (the national anthem).

== Who here would mind Obama as president?==
I'll admit it, i am a moderate on the conservative slanted site. Be as my politcal views span both sides, i am hoping for Obama to win the election. I'm sure that some people here have criticisms of him, some of which may even be valid. So have at it people: Why not Obama, the man sent to lead America to greatness?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 20:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I must remind you, this is a conservative encyclopedia. most conservatives can't handle the idea of a black man as superior to them! [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ahhh, so we have a self-admitted Godless Liberal, accusing conservatives, all of them apparently, of being racists. Nice and intellectual! Once again a "mobocracy" trait shining through, ignoring all logic and putting idealogical hatred first! Nice. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::No right-thinking people could possible support having a black as President, let alone in their neighborhood. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:27, 21 March 2007 (PST).

:::I think it would be great if he won, I can't stand Hilary...--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 21:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm one of the most liberal people I know... and I cannot stand the woman. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case, get to those primaries and vote (especially if you live in Iowa or NH). I believe that there are worthy candidates on the Republicans as well, but i want to ensure the best man for the job gets the democratic nomination.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:To be honest... He would be better than that anti-video gaming [[fascist]]. No offense to anybody. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Personally, I feel Obama may be too inexperienced for the job. However, I still would like to see him elected. In reality, the president doesn't need to be very smart or experienced to BE president. He has a Cabinet of advisors and a whole staff to make decisions for him. Ergo, Obama doesn't really NEED the experience. He's plenty smart enough, and he come off as highly educated and eloquent. Really though, what makes him a good candidate is that he is well liked. What we need right now is a president who is willing to go around to all the European countries we have angered and make kissy-face with them, thus patching up our foreign policy. Hillary isn't going to do that, and I doubt a Republican president would. If we don't get our foreign policy out of the toilet, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble soon.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That reminds me of Bush Jr... --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree completely! No person with the name hussein will become president[[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 12:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I understand why American terrorists would want Hussein Obama to be President. How obtuse can you be not to understand he is the Al-Qaeda candidate? I will not surrender willingly to Barack Hussein Obama. [[User:GettingItRight|GettingItRight]] 22:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:Exactly, because obviously an American sounding name makes a great president. Look at George Walker Bush. [[User:Kip|Kip]] 07:26, 7 March 2008 (EST)
::He's not a Muslim. He became a very religious Christian in his early 20's and then he met Rev. Wright who's a racist, Afro-centrist Christian, and he's still a member of that church. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:30, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

In response to the original question, Obama would not be a good candidate because the only thing he has going for him is his charisma. Example: when asked, he said if elected, he would immediately pull all American troops out of Iraq. Wether you agree with the war or not doesn't matter - that would be irrisponsible. It is not a matter of race by any means - I would love to see a black president, but one who is actually qualified for the job.--[[User:Justintree|Justintree]] 14:51, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Can't we get a better source for his voting record than an opinion piece? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

*You can't turn a pigs ear into a silk purse dude......he doesn't have much of one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not saying how to judge his voting record, I'm saying that an opinion piece doesn't merit a good source. A good rule of thumb is that if there's a little picture next to an article, it's a column or an opinion piece, not an article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that flew right over my head...I even heard the air noise! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

# I asked for people who were going to discuss his voting record to use an actual source, not an opinion piece as it is now
# You made a joke about his lack of a voting record
# I said that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about sources. Columns, op-eds, editorials are not sources. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, so my cracking a joke meant I didn't understand what you meant, and might have distracted the readers, so they wouldn't know either? Got it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::From the ass' butt to it's mouth, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm for last session. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Breaking News!!!!==

Barack has just raised 25 million dollars for his campaign making his in competiton with Hiliary Clinton!! [http:// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/25 million!!!!]

== Controversial ? ==

Why is Barack Obama's biographical entry a "controversial" topic for Conservapedia, and locked out from editing?
:Because people who don't feel like contributing useful information see fit to compare his name to those of terrorists. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::It was vandalized twice in 48 hours. I asked for it to be unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. It look presentable. I left in the material about how liberal he is, though I doubt its value. At least it looks nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*The political leanings of any politician are the most important of all. Their stated goals mean nothing, their idealogy everything. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't disagree, but I doubt the veracity of saying X is Y more liberal than Z. Liberalness is not a quanitfiable value. There are better ways to describe his political agenda than by saying "look who he is more liberal than." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, Myk, it's your MSM who does it, the Liberal news organizations, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't know if I'd call the National Journal, a publication with an almost $2000 per year subscription rate, mainstream. I tend to avoid it when I hear it, just as I tend to avoid editorial commentary. A far better judge of whether or not a candidate fits your bill is to look issue by issue. And it may be the "Main Stream Media" that started it, but it was the Rocky Mountain News which reported it (in a column) and Conservapedia who repeated it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::How is this locked? I can still edit this. Maybe that's because i have proven myself in being able to see Obama for the wonderous person he really is. Or not (since i may get banned for a comment like that, him being a non-conservative)--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 01:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Things change on a wiki, dude. It got unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Goofy Article ==

I understand that B.O. hits a lot of people's hot buttons, but this article is a mess. "half-African, half-Caucasian"? What's up with that? Why not use the generally-accepted and perfectly accurate term "African-American"? Or ditch it altogether, unless we're going to start classifying all politicos by race/ethnicity ("Irish-Caucasoid Ted Kennedy", or "Texan-American George Bush"). Better still, ignore the race issue until it is relevant to the article ("Obama is the the first African-American to...").

Too, do we really need three sentences establishing Obama's exact degree of liberlosity? Can't we just say "liberal Democrat", or just describe his positions ("show, don't tell").--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 11:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*I took all that away once, have been overruled by another Sysop, evidently. I changed it back once, to African-American, but some felt it important to note he was Mulatto. An archaic term, if ever there was one. Mixed-race would be acceptable today. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek ==

Why are we discussing Michael Richards (not Kramer by the way) and Jimmy the Greek (real name Jimmy Snyder) on Barack Obama's page? The Boston Globe criticized him, black leaders criticized him... that's relevant. Imus' career and the issues surround Richards and Snyder are not. I would change this myself but it was protected again. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:And while it's still off topic here, it might be pertinent for the [[Don Imus]] article to note that CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks, not a few affiliates. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK, please tell me where Obama's intellect vs. the intellect of civil rights leaders is mentioned in the source. And please tell me why refering to the old civil rights era is not redundant as the civil rights era is generally considered to be the era of MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks. That's already old, TK. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps to you, perhaps to me, but not necessarily to readers. Our "job" is to make things clear for them, not us. I think my change to old-guard makes it much clearer. Your additions were borderline denigration, to Hill's advantage, I would say. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So this is a wiki. We create a link for Civil Rights Era and then we make the article. His disconnection from Civil Rights figures is well publicized, just google Sharpton AND Obama. Or Obama AND black AND enough. Never is his intellect brought up. That's your opinion and is not sourced. I have no reason to want to support Hillary Clinton. Never been a fan. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Someone reading his curriculum vitae cannot escape his intellect, no? Since we currently have in place a "Civil Rights" leadership, it isn't necessairly old, is it? Jackson and Sharpton (both bigots, IMO) are from the old-guard civil rights era, and that is germain, is it not, since Obama's age was brought into the argument? Are you really incensed at that one word addition, which is sourced by the rest of the page, or that it was me adding to it? I will be happy to add a cite for what you consider an assumption, later today. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I just think it's redundant. His disconnect is with the era. He was too young to participate in it and as he is not a descendant of slaves, he is considered to not be a part of the CRE culture. As for the intellect thing, that has no part of his disconnection. You are either saying Obama is smarter or stupider than Civil Rights Leaders, something of which you have no proof. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Myk, the "proof" that Obama is "smarter" is in the public record, IMO. Disconnect is a pejorative word, used by reporter and political scum to smear people without appearing to overtly do so. Did you not know that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**I read the article to say Obama wants to be known as a "national leader", not a "Black leader", to paraphrase moreless. Hence a sort of parting of the ways with traditional well known "Black civil rights leaders", so to speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. He views things, seemingly, unlike the older leaders, as not just black and white issues. Obviously due to his age, upbringing in a multi-cultural society, and his education....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Still, by referring to leadership in quotes, and comparing their intellect unfavorably to Obama's you are painting a whole bunch of folks with a wide pejorative brush. Jackson and Sharpton are not representative of the whole of the CRE activists. And, of course, the Obama entry is not the appropriate place for a broadside against JJ, AS, and so forth.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Agreed, WJT, however they are allowed/painted/claimed to be "the leaders" both in the press and educational circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**This is indeed an important point, Obama's greatest fear is being marginalized as just another "Black leader"; he's counting on what Republicans call the 'color blind society" to elevate him as an equal, respected national figure and leader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well he certainly has my attention and support in doing that, and ridding us at long last of the hobgoblins of the past, and wresting the power away from the merchants of fear and hate. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Off Page Discussion ==

Regarding the published criticism of Barack Obama, don't you think the majority of that link would be better served in an article about Don Imus or about Racism in Broadcasting? It seems to me that the relevant bit is that the Boston Globe and some prominent black leaders question Obama's handling of the situation, not the digression towards Michael Richard and Jimmy the Greek. Myk 15:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You convinced me. You wanna do it? RobS 15:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
It was locked last time I checked. Myk 15:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I'll unprotect you so you can fix it; but i may have to reprotect quickly cause actually I don;t know what's going on on that page. RobS 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
That you'd have to take up with TK. He thinks the candidate pages are being excessively vandalized. I have been unable to persuade him otherwise. Myk 16:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. Check it out to make sure it still fits with what you wanted to say. I am an Obama supporter so I tried to keep it to the source as much as possible. Searching for Obama AND Imus actually comes up with a lot of comments about Imus and McGuirk (sp?) making derogatory comments about Obama himself. Those weren't helpful. Myk 16:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Real good. Couldn't have done better myself. Say, while I got you here, would you mind discussing why you support Obama just to answer some personal curiousity. I got two questions off the top (a) what age group do you fall into (18-24, 25-30, 30-45, 45+),and (b) when and/or where did you first hear of Obama? Thanks. RobS 16:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm narrowly into the 30-45 category. And I first heard Obama at the 04 convention. Went out and got his first book and then Audacity when it came out. Myk 16:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Question 3: Do you think he can (a) defeat Hillary in the primaries and go on to win the General election, and/or (b) is just running for the VP spot? RobS 16:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
(Undent) I don't think people on the right fully appreciate how disenchanted a lot of Democrats are with Hillary. I think when the two of them are on the same stage in a debate the differences will become overwhelming. Obama is both charismatic and smart. As for the general... well, obviously he's going to be a polarizing figure just because of his race and his name... but far less polarizing than Clinton. I think Hillary is much more beatable in a general than Obama. Myk 16:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Good observations, and I agree with all of it. Hillary is the Newt Gingrich of the Democratic Party--42% will come out to vote for her, and 42% will come out to vote for whoever can beat her.
So as to the question of electability, Richardson & Obama got her beat. I just quickly reread Obama & Kerry's convention speeches, cause I recall at the time much of what Obama said was directly contradicted on successive nights by a host of successive speakers. Let's look at these two excisions:
Obama:tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America. [23]
Kerry:after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. [24]
Now, is this just meaningless election rhetoric on the part of both speakers, or is there some way to reconcile these divergent passages? RobS 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
A lot comes down to genuineness (I think I just made up a word). When Obama uses rhetoric, I believe it. At least in a way that I never do from Kerry or Clinton. The position of president entails a mix of issues, ability and inspiration. Issues are always going to be split based on ideology. Ability is where Obama's going to take a hit due to his lack of national / executive experience but he clearly has the intellect. If he can handle that question, which I think he can, then his ability to inspire will make him a daunting force. Think Bill Clinton without the smarm. And hopefully without the personal problems. As it stands now, Romney and Giuliani are the only GOP candidates I see capable of taking on Obama and then only if they don't prompt a more conservative third party candidate.
The fact that Obama chose to give a unifying speech at a historically polarizing venue took a lot of courage. Compare his keynote address to Zell Miller's. Regardless of your thoughts on the issues, Miller's speech was a heckuva lot more abrasive. Myk 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Guilani doesn't have a prayer. GOP will not nominate an East Coast liberal in favor of abortion. The question is who can beat McCain? Richardson may, Hillary can't, and Obama probably can't either. (Incidentally, new item this morning says Fred Thompson has lymphoma, so that leaves Huckabee as the only other Bible-belt GOP candidate, and Bible-belt candidates, GOP or Dem, are the only ones who can win nowadays).
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:
Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on Americans entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.
This is how the game of politics is played. RobS 17:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is how it is played, usually, like this, away from the article talk page, to the exclusion of those not specifically "watching" the page. :p --~ TK MyTalk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, I'll cut and paste it over there. RobS 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
McCain has alienated both the left and the right. I don't think he has a shot for the nomination and the only thing that can save him in the general would be an abrupt upturn in the war. Myk 18:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS"

==Another take==
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:

Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on America's entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.

This is how the game of politics is played. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think he's running for VP. I think even being elected for VP would marginalize the accomplishment. And he's certainly not fundraising like a VP. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*One doesn't ever "run" for Vice President. However when Hillary is nominated, her asking him to take the job is pretty much a mandatory yes from him. Especially if he ever wants to run for President again. Refusing would term him out as a Senator, and strip him of any future party leadership. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::*Libby Dole did 2000.

:::*See, now we need to understand how the fundraising law operates (which can't be briefly explained right here). He's got $20+ million; as an Illinois Senator, he's not up for another 5 years, and needs maybe 6-10 million by then. So this is one way he's being rewarded, he's basically got enough cash to hold that Senate seat for the next 24 years right now, in addition to being able to contribute to other candidates, i.e. build a politcal machine. This is how the game of politics really operates, and if you look beneath the surface, follow events, and see where Obama ends up in the next 18 to 24 months (and several decades after), you really can get some insight on the inner workings that are often hazy and mysterious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Obama isn't Senator Dole, with her political pedigree, it is indeed apples and oranges. I do have friends who are managing Obama, since its a very small world at that level of handling, and he has a decent shot. But in my opinon, and that of Dick Morris (albeit a Hillary hater, but most certainly a FOB.) he will possibly be offered the VP shot. If not too throughly destroyed by the Clintons long before the convention. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**The name of the game is beat McCain. Right now McCain beats all hands down (as he has for two years now). McCain controls big donors, party apparatcheks, old Perot & Colin Powell middle of the roaders, and a few Democrats. But the dirty little secret is GOP rank and file core constituents, the tax cutters and the religious right, are not that enthusiastic about McCain. His biggest problem is in his own party. If Hillary is the nominee, then the core rank & file will come out to vote for McCain to stop Hillary. And a VP candidate such as Obama, as the record shows, adds nothing to the ticket. This however, is where Bill Richardson can win. If it’s McCain vs Richardson, and GOP rank & file stay home, Richardson could actually pull off the win, cause he doesn’t have the “high negatives”, as they are called, that candidates like Hillary & Gingrich have. High negatives motive people to go out and vote against a candidate. This is were the polling on McCain is deceptive, if it’s McCain vs Hillary, the Republicans will come out in force to stop Hillary; if it’s McCain vs Richardson, many Republicans will stay home rather than soil their conscience by voting for someone or something they detest. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I look forward to beating the pants off of McCain! Newt has the hearts and minds of the GOP, and many, many Democratic voters, with his commmon-sense, almost Reagan-like approach. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:**Right now, 2008 looks like a Democratic year; the only thing that could screw it up is--Hillary Clinton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, again. However, have you looked at newt.org and some of the bipartisan initiatives he has launched? BTW I added some backgound on that scum reporter, some other interviews she gave and her own posts, discrediting her being bipartisan, or even fair, where Obama is concerned. I smell one of Bill's cigars at work. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd have Newt's baby if I were a women, but he's not going anywhere. And I recently read somewhere he's not serious anyway. The mold of modern Presidents is a Southern Governor, or at least a Southerner. This has been true since Lyndon Johnson. Nixon & Reagan were from California, but the demographics of California since the Dust Bowl era have been Southern (remember, Grapes of Wrath, the Okies headed west, etc). So California is really much more like the South than it is the Midwest or the East. Southerners do not vote by party, they vote for "one of their own", i.e. one who talks and sounds like them. Easterners & Midwesterners don;t vote like this, they are more ideological of party driven the by the common culture and history that Southerners share. Ironic, even thought the South lost the Civil War, they have come to dominate the Presidency since the 60s. Bill Richardson fits this mold. So do Huckabee & McCain. Fred Thompson & the guy from Kansas also. I suspect Hillary, cosmopolitan New Yorker that she has become, along with Pennsyvlania & Chicago roots, will really resurrect her Southern drawl she gave up nearly 15 years ago now in the next coming months. This will be comical to watch, listening to her Eastern & Midwest accent when she's DC or NY, but pouring on the the good 'ol drawl when she's out on the trail, cause she smart enough to know how Presidential elections are won. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rob, Newt is from Georgia. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:02, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Gingrich and Hillary have the identical problem: "high negatives". Both enjoy 42% over all support; both have 42% "unfavorable" ratings. In other words, it's a wash. +42% - 42% = 0 net positive. Neither can win.

:::What "high negatives" do is motivate voters to get out an ''vote against'' a candidate. Typically, voters a motivated by a candidates ''charisma'' so to speak, like Clinton or Reagan, where voters are motivated to ''vote for'' the candidate; when candidates fail to inspire, like Dole, Dukakis, ''et al'', voters stay home. But a candidate like Gingrich or Hillary with high negatives motivates voters to get out and defeat them by voting for whatever uninspiring, uncharismatic candidate stands the best chance to beat them. This is why uninspired Rebublicans ''will'' vote for McCain to defeat Hillary, with a high turnout, whereas in a McCain/Richardson contest, Republicans voters will stay home and a Democrat then can win. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Blog or an encyclopedia? ==

Would like to know if this is now officially an political blog, or are we still trying to make an encyclopedia? If the goal of the site hasn't changed, why are there entryes like: "Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States." ? Are we next going to collect President Bushes slips in his speeches and post them here under his article? Tell me if this is the new trend and ill go collect some. Would lenghten the article nicely. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

*Someone so obviously discontent with Conservapedia, makes one wonder why they are here at all. I mean, I am not wanting you to leave, if you think you can do productive work, most certainly. However I can only judge from my own feelings, which would mean if I was that unhappy, I wouldn't waste my breath on it. You are an extraordinary man, being able to do productive editing and be so displeased. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

::nevermind --'''''[[User:Andersmusician|Andersmusician]]''''' 23:13, 22 July 2007 (EDT)~

*Gosh, you waited all this time to respond, and had to make a sock to do it? :O --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:27, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== GSmiley ==

Great additions here today! Thanks for your effort. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

==Gossip==

"Former House Majority leader Tom DeLay has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a “Marxist leftist.”"

I thought Conservapedia reached its recent page view goal without indulging in the gossip common on wikipedia? This is something I have seen on a number of political biographies here, but mainly on Democrats. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:40, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Drug Use ==

I was shocked that Obama's admitted cocaine use [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html] isn't mentioned in this article. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 14:48, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Our [[rules]] prohibit [[gossip]]. [[Gossip]] has zero educational value, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 17 December 2007 (EST)

:: How does one define gossip? He wrote about it himself - making it not private, no? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:19, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Liberal Rankings Reference ==

I would like to see the reference for Obama being the 10th most liberal senator changed to this
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc
because this is what the other reference refers to and because this site is very informative as it lists other senators scores and votes. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:30, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Unprotected, so do it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Done! Reprotect again if you like. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:35, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Rumours ==
This article is somewhat sloppy in its attributions and quotes. The part about the allegations about Obama's childhood are a good case in point. Surely it should be made clear that the allegations that he attended a madrassa are lies? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggest Protection ==

There's a vandal who was blocked once today for targeting presidential candidate entries. Since the primary is tonight (fingers crossed for Huck!) I expect vandalism to go up on these articles, before it goes down! I would recommend protecting articles like this for a week, maybe?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)

: No need for protection. We'll be watching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Affirmative action in summary ==

I'm sorry about not discussing the recent change I made- I didn't see how it was major, as MexMax suggests, or even arguable. Here's why I did it:

The summary contains an anti-Obama statement claiming he is nothing more than a black man, who gained his status due to affirmative action. I removed the section because this very article states that he not only graduated Harvard Law, but did so magna cum laude ("with highest honors"). I can understand someone having issue with the possibility of his getting accepted due to his race, but graduating at the top of his class is far from proven to be race-based.

Regarding the paper he wrote, it's just fluff. His lack of a background in physics is unrelated since he was not authoring a paper in physics. He was writing about law, using physics as an analogy of legal matters. If the editor who put this text here actually bothered to read the reference, they would have seen that the context of the quote was actually a compliment Tribe: "...he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades." Again, where is affirmative action in this?

Conservapedia is about truth, not spreading propaganda (correct me if my impression is mistaken). I understand that Obama does not share conservative values but lying is morally wrong as well and we should not tolerate it here.

-- [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 12:00, 30 January 2008 (EST)

: Obama's record and support is full of puffery, preferences, and advantages based on his race. Your comments above only reinforce some of them, rather than rebut them. He was credited with analyzing a paper on physics, without any background in the topic. In fact, he apparently had no formal background in constitutional law at the time either! We're going to tell the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: You should be a bit careful, though, Andy. You don't want to get hung out to dry like you did over Dawkins. A word to the wise! [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:13, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:Removed the personal opinion on Tribe's remarks regarding Obama. Tribe can state whatever he wants regarding Obama, and if it's going to be referenced, do so straight up. CP isn't the place to debate Tribe's remark as he can't respond. If we include his remark (or the reference) we shouldn't be expounding on it. I didn't think an encyclopedia should contain personal opinion. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:17, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:: Accounts will be blocked if they remove facts or quotes here, or in the Dawkins entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::How is "absurdly insisted" a fact and not an opinion? If it just said insisted, that's a fact because it was a direct quote. But to add the adverb "absurdly", that makes it opinion.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::: You deleted the Tribe quotes also, which is unacceptable. If you want to remove "absurdly" then insert "liberal" next to Tribe's name so that readers can see for themselves how ridiculous the quotes are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::Jdellaro's right, you know. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: "MatthewHopkins", you seem to love to talk, talk, talk. I'm going to check your edits now to see if there is any substance there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: That's rich. Check away, old horse. You'll find good stuff there, and most of the talk is attempting to argue sense into [[Liberals]]. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 16:05, 30 January 2008 (EST)

::::: Aschalfly- First, we can't change things without talking, now Matt gets slammed because he tried to discuss the issue. You claim this is a meritocracy, but you push people around just because you don't know them. Your action here is that of a tyrant- threatening someone who is only trying to help the encyclopedia. I know you are concerned about liberals defacing the encyclopedia, but I don't think you've found one in this case. I've checked his edits without malice, and he seems to deserve good standing. You should be ashamed when you finish your witch hunt and apologize. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 07:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Mr. S, this is really weird. I mean, Obama might be just left of Lenin, but I don't get the affirmative action thing. Do we know his SATs, LSATs, etc? Do we have any evidence that his "achievements" are based on AA? If not, then this will look to any sane person like a racist piece of poo article. I mean, c'mon, let's get this guy on the facts, not on bizarre assumptions. Just cuz he's black doesn't mean he benefited from AA. He may have, and if he did, where's the citation? Otherwise, it's racist gossip.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 16:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)

: Agreed- this nonsense makes the article looks more like a smear campaign that a fact-based biography. Due to the absence of any evidence, I will be removing much of the AA material later this week. I am halfway through reading the law review article, and there's nothing wrong with it. You may have a different opinion, but the essay is solid- liberal in its views perhaps, but certainly not absurd. There is none of this alleged analysis of physics, only a well cited collection of the physics issues described so that a layman can understand the importance of their discovery and their effects on modern scientific thought. Note that these effects are the key point and they have more to do with the history of science than science itself, and do not require the absurd call for a background in physics. The credits cite Barack for being the last of five persons providing "analytic and research assistance", but do not specify his contribution, which could have been anywhere from analytic to gofering to the law library to make photocopies. It also mentions a Harvard physics professor as a source of technical comments, so the physics are probably sound. If Obama was a major contributor to this essay, he should be commended for a job well done, but the current evidence doesn't allow for either congratulations or condemnation. Please provide comments and present supporting evidence. If you want to comment on the article, try reading it first: Harvard Law Review- Volume 103 November 1989, Number 1. [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 13:28, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Some childish heavy-handed coward anonymously and secretly blocked my account instead of using discussion to come to a conclusion on this matter. Whoever you are, you can't shut me up by clicking a check box. Give me a fair trial for violating site policy or prove me wrong. Keep blocking new accounts only proves your contempt for truth and free speech. [[User:NepotisMonachusB|NepotisMonachusB]] 08:46, 14 February 2008 (EST)

Im sorry but that AA thing is complete bigotry, you can be black and still achieve. This is very offencive , only a racist would be happy with it, no wonder only moderates and liberals will stand a chance of winning the election, be it McCain, clinton or obama, the conservative voice will never again take prominance in politics. Maybe after seeing this im quite releaved. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 12:02, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The total number of votes cast by Obama is meaningless, since the vast majority of them would be on non-controversial issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:Not a problem; I was just trying to add a bit of perspective to the point. However, you might want to reconsider or reformulate the second part of the paragraph (which you also reverted). It's unclear who exactly "opponent" refers to--I understand it means Jack Ryan, but Obama's main Dem primary rival came to a similar end (dropped out of the race when details of his divorce became public). Further, readers might recall that Obama defeated Alan Keyes in the general election and wrongly believe the sexual allegations refer to him. Hence, my phrasology of "initial Republican" and "dropped out". Also, thanks for (re)clarifying the research citation.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

== "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" ==

Seems a little harsh (and uncited). Could it maybe be reworded slightly? His race is perhaps one factor, but ''surely'' it's not implied that Obama's entire life has consisted of coasting on a combination of his ethnicity and [[liberal]] [[affirmative action]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:28, 30 January 2008 (EST)
:That's extremely harsh, I agree, and veering towards the biased. Of all the thousands of people who have voted for him, surely what he has to say, what he has written and what he has done have all had a bigger impact than affirmative action? If affirmative action was in place, then why isn't Alan Keyes the Republican front-runner? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Republican voters do not support [[affirmative action]], and do care about military and other experience in choosing a Commander in Chief. Many (not all) Democratic voters care more about promoting [[racial quotas]]. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)

::: Aschlafly- you've avoided the point with more anti-liberal statements. While I'm happy to sling those around with you, bias is the question here. I'll try to make Feebasfactor's point a little clearer for you: Is there bias in the affirmative action statement, or is the accusation verifiable? If proof cannot be provided, how are we better are than the liberals on Wikipedia, who we bash daily on their bias? Do we even care anymore or have we abandoned Conservapedia's founding principles? [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 16:46, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:: Aschafly - If Republicans care about military experience, then why choose Reagan or G. W Bush, whose experience of warfare was minimal? And if I can point out something with my tongue firmly in my cheek, why are the current Republican candidates for the Oval Office all themselves from minorities - a Mormon, an Old Age Pensioner, an Evangelical, an African-American and a... a whatever the heck Ron Paul is? Isn't that affirmative action too? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)

:::Aschafly - Let's say all the Democratic candidates for President are black. (Bear with me here.) These are all people who graduated from a prestigious school with high honors, worked as a lawyer, and served as a Congressman, governor, or mayor. Would you then say that all of them got to where they were as a result of affirmative action and nothing else? That none of the things they accomplished came as a result of their talent, or perhaps their intelligence? That successful minorities must be viewed upon with suspicion?

:::Kinda stupid hypothetical situation, I know, but I hope it gets my point across, however stupid you think that point may be. [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 20:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::Let's say there's a young white guy, not bad-looking, but not all that original a thinker. His parent is a famous theocrat and a founder of the new Religious Right in the late 70s/early 80s. Despite his lack of original thinking and intelligence, he manages to get into an ivy league school, and despite that, his greatest accomplishment is a bizarre blogwiki hybrid on which he spreads hate and fear to children. Isn't that affirmative action?
::::Never mind, it's too weird to contemplate.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Peggy Noonan, that well-known leftist, in the well-known leftist publication The Wall Street Journal:

"He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you.
(I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)"

Possibly she means you guys. I merely suggest. "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" is at least good enough to have been written by David Duke.
Archer070

I'm removing that line until a citation of some kind is given. If there was an affirmative action program for congress in place I am sure that its Conservapedia entry would be even more popular than the one on Homosexuality. [[User:NoraReed|NoraReed]] 23:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== African american ==

In this article is says that:"He is, as of 2007, the only African American serving in the United States Senate"
but
"Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii"
He is most certainly not african american.

He is not African American because he was born in Hawaii? You MUST be joking. O__O I mean, I have heard "He is not the descendant of African slaves, so he isn't really African American." and I have heard "Living all over the world, he surely isn't in touch with African American life." but I think you have taken the petty distinctions to a new low.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 12:31, 1 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==

Found a great article while searching for W's foreign policy experience before the war. The full article is here:
<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/24/president.2000/foreign.policy/</ref>

Here's the relevant portions:

<blockquote>
Just how much do new presidents need to know about international affairs?

Franklin Roosevelt had experience and led successfully during World War II. But when he died, the presidency passed to Harry Truman, who was so out of things Roosevelt had never even told him about the atomic bomb. But Truman had many foreign policy successes: the end of World War II; the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe; the policy of containing the Soviet Union; the Berlin airlift when the Soviets tried to cut the city off; the United Nations; and so on.

He couldn't end the Korean War, but in foreign policy, he had many more pluses than minuses. Dwight Eisenhower had lots of experience. He was the allied commander in World War II; ended the Korean War; demanded, successfully that Britain, France and Israel abandon their seizure of the Suez Canal. Successes.

John Kennedy grew up on foreign policy. His father was ambassador to Britain. And JFK wrote a study of British policy between world wars called "While England Slept."

As president, he had one big failure: the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. But it was followed by a big success: resolving the Cuban missile crisis by getting Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet Missiles from Cuba in exchange for withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey.

Lyndon Johnson had no direct experience aside from Senate debates. His administration passed historic domestic legislation: the civil rights and voting rights acts. But the unresolved war in Vietnam destroyed his presidency.

Richard Nixon had experience as Eisenhower's vice president and had solid success: detente with the Soviet Union, opening relations with China after decades of silence.
Carter
Former President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter had no experience, failed to free American hostages held in Iran, and said he was surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success: negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush's presidency.

Does experience matter? Yes, if you look at Johnson or Carter; no, if you look at Truman or Reagan.
</blockquote>

Seems that Reagan and W had about as much experience as Obama.

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

== removed false information ==

While Obama is left of Stalin on some matters, the Affirmative Action statement is blatant racism without some example given. Further, the Harvard law Review is hardly "liberal', as it counts among it's alum Supreme Court Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. And IT DOES NOT HAVE A QUOTA!

We can disagree with his policies, but we are not going to lie about him.

Having the same issues as reported above this is the second time I've had to remove the affirmative action statement, which is completely unquantifiable. I've also made edits removing language which is somewhat misleading and gives the article a very bias anti-Obama slant. If this site is dedicated to eliminating bias, it should not turn a blind-eye to conservative bias or in this case blatant racial discrimination. I have also expanded upon the issue surrounding his voting "present" so often. As stated in the article, voting "present" is commonplace in the Illinois Senate on both sides of the aisle. I kindly ask that [[Aschlafly]] stops reverting the article back to its previous biased and misleading state. If you disagree with the edits I've made write on my talk page or respond on the article's talk page instead of simply eliminating my changes, all of which seek to further expand the information in the article and maintain neutrality as best as possible.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 11:39, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: The Harvard Law review is extremely liberal, and it does have racial quotas in its admission. Your false accusation of lying are not appreciated and will not be allowed.

: The statement about [[affirmative action]] is accurate and will remain in the entry. Repeated attempts to remove it without justification will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Justified how? Saying that Obama's life amounts to nothing more than lucking out with affirmative action isn't a quantifiable statement...at all. It is nothing more than a completely biased statement and does in fact convey a sense of bigotry. The edits I've made to the article have not introduced some virile liberal bias, I've simply elaborated on contentious issues and removed language and phrasing which is decidedly opinionated. Just because someone disagrees with you [[Aschlafly]] does not make that person wrong. Stop using the power which you have been granted out of good faith by the rest of this site to act like the NKVD, censoring whatever you feel like, and threatening those who disagree with you through bans or some other reprimands when they have only sought to maintain neutrality and expand factuality.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 15:45, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Your racial bullying is not going to work here. [[Affirmative action]] is a big part of Obama's career and his support. Don't delete it from the entry and don't deny that the Harvard Law Review is a very liberal institution that uses [[racial quotas]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:51, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: Racial bullying? I'm sorry my defective leftist brain must not be able to comprehend your superior Divine logic. But I'm not the one throwing baseless affirmative action rants into what should be a neutral and factual article. Even Clarence Thomas would tell you just how bigoted and perposturous such a claim is.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly: Enforcer of <s>Truth</s> ==

So, after having edited the Obama article for the third time to remove some of the more opinionated wording, removing the baseless affirmative action claim, and expanding on the procedures of the Illinois Senate to give people a better understanding of why Obama voted "present" 129 times, Conservapedia Fuhrer [[Aschlafly]] has threatened to ban me if I edit the article again, despite the neutrality and factuality of my edits. Does anybody else think this is somewhat of an abuse of power as well as an attempt to enforce his own opinion on the rest of the site, and, is there someway that we could replace him with someone who is not a fanatical reactionary.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)
:It's Andy's site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:49, 17 February 2008 (EST)
: :Agree it's Andy's site. Of course Andy should be ashamed of himself; but it's still his site. Andy has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of his mom's clout. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]
::: It's Andy's site?!?!?! I was under the opinion it was an encyclopedia![[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 09:57, 20 February 2008 (EST)

This is the reason liberals will win the whitehouse , people are tired of these attitudes , people need to move into the 21st century .... quickly. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:46, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== It's ASTOUNDING! . . . Why? Don't you people know how Congress works? ==

"For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times."

Why is that astounding? That is an incredibly SMALL number. Congresspersons vote on thousands of issues each TERM. And for Barack Obama to have been a Senator for EIGHT YEARS and to only not vote 130 times... lol.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]

:"As for his voting performance, Obama liked sitting on the fence. He is recalled for taking full advantage of an Illinois rule that lets you vote "present" if you don't want to commit yourself. Illinois State Senator Bill Brady recalled: "I learned very quickly that the 'present' vote, where the button you press is very appropriately coloured yellow, is the chicken's way out." ([http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''])[[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:14, 20 February 2008 (EST)

: Voting "present" 130 times is NOT a small number. It is an astounding large number of times to duck important issues, so large that even [[Hillary Clinton]] has ridiculed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:02, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::It's a fair point, but I'd suggest that the article should nonetheless give some concept of scale. 130 "present" votes translates to about 3% of the votes cast, which quite frankly isn't a lot. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:06, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: It is enormous. A politician is serving only himself, and not his constituents, by ducking so many important issues. You won't find any earnest politician voting "present" so many times and ducking so many important issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:10, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: But those statements that you make, Andrew, are all opinions that aren't sourced from cited sources. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, merely trying to ensure that we have the most accurately cited article we can have; all I'm saying is that in order to support the claim that voting present 3% of the time - which purely quantitatively doesn't '''seem''' like much to the average obsever - you'd actually need to give '''a solid, cited example''' of an "earnest politician" who hasn't voted present on a comparable proportion of issues. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:34, 29 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

The reversion removed a silly, self-serving quote that only filled the entry with junk. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 23 February 2008 (EST)

The reversion this morning reinserted a liberal deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Introduction to article ==

I don't disagree with the subject matter, but I think there's a problem with the introduction. Most of the information seems to relate to his ideological/political stances, and so would be better placed in the body of the article rather than posted up front. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: We put the important stuff first here. But thanks for your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Some things need altering like the affirmative action thing. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 15:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: What's the problem? No [[liberals]] have any problems in complaining about alleged special preferences for [[conservatives]]. When someone gets special treatment and then seeks to become president on that basis, it's fair game to criticize the special treatment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: Maybe he DID get SOME special treatment , but the article suggests that everything he`s achieved in life is a result of AA. Maybe it needs a little tinkering with, it comes across too strongly , there is no problem saying that AA helped him but to say thats the only reason he got anywhere in life is a big jump. If he becomes president (trust me there is a good chance of it) are you going to say he only became president as a result of AA? Thats just not possible, people voted for him because they liked him and his ideas not because they felt sorry for him for past racism towards black people.--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 06:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:: To be fair, "no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained ... [by] affirmative action" is a much stronger statement than, say, "he could not have achieved the heights he has in the absence of affirmative action." The former claims he has _no_ achievements of his own, which seems so exaggerated that I'd believe it was written by a troll if you weren't defending it yourself. I would never consider entering politics, and even I have what might reasonably called "personal achievements." I'm sure Obama has some too. The latter statement merely (rightly!) observes that his achievements would never have elevated him to the status he's achieved, if it were not for liberal affirmative action; isn't that more like what you mean? [[User:Coas|Coas]] 16:31, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Needs a major overhaul... ==

On the whole, this article, I believe, needs a major overhaul. Firstly, too much of this, while true, is written in so many ways like gossip. A glaring error that any serious writer would immediatly reject is the phrase: "Obama is SO pro-abortion..." It sounds like some high-school kid exaggerating to a friend. While it may be true, to phrase it in such a way is very unprofessional, and degrades the credibility of the article.

Also, while I understand that many see this article as an outlet to vent frustration at an inexperienced, unproven candidate, to write the entire article in a highly critical light errodes the circumstantiated tone that I assume Conservapedia strives for. Those not well informed might see this article as bigoted and hateful, whith spurious and unsubstantiated claims. My advice is to write these facts in a neutral, detatched style, as is the case with most encyclopedias. To do otherwise detracts from Conservapedia as a whole.

A few suggestions just from the very beginning:

1. "Obama is so pro-abortion..." should be changed to something like: "Obama has a well-noted stance of pro-abortion, demostrated in cases such as his blocking of the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants protection act, which was unanimously supported by the U.S. Senate."

2. "Obama has absolutely no military..." needs to be reworked into something more or less as follows: "Obama has a distinct lack of military, executive, and foreign policy experience as evidenced by..." and include some example of how he simply has not been in a position where he could gain any of this experience.

3. "Throughout his career, he has repeatedly ducked..." has too much opinion attached to it, and the "...in an apparent attempt..." part reeks of unprofessionalism. A good alternative would be "Obama has many times abstained from taking a controversial stand on certain issues, voting 'present' instead of 'aye' or 'nay' a substantial 130 times during his career as an Illinois state senator."

Much, much more needs to be done for this to sound like an authoritative encyclopedic article instead of an opinionated rant.
--[[User:Churro|Churro]] 01:18, 27 February 2008 (EST)

== Foreign Policy Experience ==
I'd like to add a few paragraphs about Obama's foreign policy experience. Any chance the article can be unprotected? --Jimmy 21:29, 4 March 2008 (EST)

: The article was unprotected for a long time, and endured repeated attempts at liberal bias. How about suggesting your edits here first?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 4 March 2008 (EST)

::== Foreign Policy Experience ==
::Sen. Obama has been a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations since his election to the Senate. <ref>http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/about.html </ref>

::He has visited many countries in his capacity as a Senator.

::Russia and former Soviet republics: Met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. Also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN).
::United Kingdom: Met with Prime Minister Tony Blair during visit with Sen. Lugar. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit </ref>

::Visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad: Discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/ </ref>

::Ten day tour of the Middle East: Talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/ </ref>--Jimmy 22:14, 4 March 2008 (EST)

==Completely incorrect information in Foreign Policy==

The information provided is completely incorrect. Senator Obama has indeed visited Continental Europe on official business - he visited Eastern Europe in August 2005, taking in Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and the UK[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]. Please correct the article.

Not only is the article factually incorrect, but the suggestion is made that this 'lack of travel experience' would make him unsuitable for the Presidency. To which I would point out that the current President George W. Bush, had NEVER visited Europe until a year '''after''' taking the Presidency. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 13:32, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Political Views section ==

I don't know whether this is a valid criticism to make, but it occurred to me while reading the article that the "Political Views" seection is rather short and vague. Although it's great to make concise comments on issues such as illegal immigration etc., it doesn't really give us a good picture of exactly what he stands for (and no jokes about not standing for anything, please!). What I mean is: the second sentence claims that Obama has the record of a Marxist leftist, but nothing after that point under that section really justifies that statement. Indeed, much of it seems to be better placed under the next section "Faith and Values". It might be pertinent to have a more detailed analysis of individual parts of his policies and stances. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: Obama's stances keep changing depending on which state is next in the primaries. It's a waste of time to attach any significance to his stated positions, other than to recognize how [[liberal]] he is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Perhaps pointing out these changes would be a better idea, Andy. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 20:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::: I don't view this as a priority, as Obama's supporters only care about his positions against the war and for abortion and don't care about much else, and those positions are spelled out. I'll unlock the entry for you if you'd like to add objective material that shows how he changes his position so often. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I know nothing of Obama's war opinion (aside troop withdrawal) and nothing of him pro-abortion position. Yet, I am still an Obama supporter, despite being non-US, as he is the only one who is not part of the great Washington machinery. It is time for change and the old stalwarts like McCain and Clinton need to go. Change can be good, not always but why not give it a chance?
Also, Bush Jnr had waaaaaaay less experience than Obama.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Can we un-lock, this artical needs to be updated ==

There is no information at all about how Obama was linked to the radical Afro-Centric "Church" in Chicago whose Pastor endorses crazy racialist theorys about Whites, the CIA did AIDS, Jews did 9/11, etcetera. ANd then of course he makes one silly speech that doesnt really say anything, and the liberal media fall over each other to praise him like the secnod coming of jesus. (btw, this isnt really my area of expertise, but I understand some American theologians have seriously considered whether he could be the anti-christ. i don't know if that's enough of a seriously taken theory but you folks should decide whether to mention it at least.

I dont understand why so many pages i try to edit are locked.

:: I think it is because reality has a well known liberal bias. (I joke, I joke) It just that liberals don't understand how to interpret reality but keep insisting that they do. It isn't like this problem is going away either.--[[User:Jroyale|Jroyale]] 21:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Étienne Léger
:Are you referring to Pastor Wright? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::Yes Jeremiah Wright is his name, he is basically an "afro-centric" race bigot who openly associates with Louis "Hitler was a great man" Farrakhan, he was Obama's chief Spiritual Advisor for many years except now he tries to deny it.

::: Please propose an encyclopedic-like addition, with a citation. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Agree: not sure why this article would be locked when it clearly needs to be updated to ensure the tone is encyclopedic and not simply derogatory. Otherwise, the reputation of this effort as a "trustworthy encyclopedia" will continue to be severely undermined.

: Im starting to think that it is too late to save this site. Its hard to take it seriously with articles like this . . . [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 18:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

OK Heres my suggestion, probably the English she needs work :) but I found lots of references and I think it's encyclopedia like. It should go under section 9 on "Faith and Values."

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

== This Article is Ridiculous ==

For God's sake, with articles like this Conservapedia is never going to be taken seriously. A “Marxist leftist"? This is just stupid, he's basically pro-life moderate conservative. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, you really are in the wrong place if you think anyone here is going to be fooled by your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

::Fooled? I don't even especially like Barack Obama. Can you honestly say that Obama is a communist? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:47, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh I see, my bad, i meant pro-choice . . . Can i change it? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:49, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Could someone with access add something like "According to the Political Compass, Barack Obama would be better described as a moderate conservative <ref>http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008</ref>" after the Marxist comment? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::I agree that in no way can Obama be described a Marxist leftist. I've met Marxist leftists and argued with them a great deal (they tend to have very fixed ideals and observe an astonishing range of fallacies about the very unlamented Soviet Union) and compared to them Obama's a solid centrist. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 07:53, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, he's politically 'left' of Ann Coulter. By Conservapedian standards, that makes him a bomb-throwing Bolshevik revolutionary fnord. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

They also tend to be communists and call each other "comrade" and call for collectivism lol. But really, that quote either needs to be removed or balanced with another. Otherwise its just libel. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:05, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:It's not libel if it's a Liberal being lied about. Didn't you get the memo? That whole "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" thing only applies if thy neighbor is a Conservative. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

::Oh, he's a liberal? I didn't know that! I can't find on the page where it says that he is a radical Islamic terrorist<ref>Barack HUSSEIN Obama!</ref>. He also a lying homosexual right? why isn't that included? If you need a source I can start a webpage and write that for you. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:21, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh, and Obama could hardly be called our neighbor. No blacks are allowed in conservapedia's neighborhood. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Voting "present" doesn't necessarily indicate a fence-sitter... ==

Oftentimes, a vote of present indicates that the candidate generally supports a proposal in principle, but is unable to support it in its current form. It's a way of saying "I'm here, I'm interested, but we can't do it this way." Say Congressman A is a strong fiscal conservative and hates deficits. A budget bill comes before the body which cuts taxes but also provides for incremental increases in government programs which Congressman A already believes are hopelessly bloated, and in so doing increases deficit spending. That Congressman might not be able to support the bill but voting "present" would put to the record that he did not outright reject the proposal, but rather that he might be open to supporting a similar, re-worked bill.

== Required Changes ==

This article needs a lot of work to bring it up to the standards of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'. Several claims don't pass muster.

- The claim "'''Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience'''" is laughingly false and makes this article look plain ignorant. There are well documented details of Obama's foreign policy experience in the article, yet this sentence remains. The reference for this claim is hopelessly incorrect. While this reference is in compliance with the commandments, it was obviously written by someone that didn't do their homework as proof of Obama's foreign policy experience is readily available. The same cannot be said of the next dubious claim.

:: You're clueless. Obama has zero military or executive experience, and his foreign policy experience is in the lowest 10% of senators. Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action'''." This comment is the sort of gossip that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Not only has this ridiculous claim been removed and reinserted many times, not a shred of evidence is presented to back up this basically idiotic nonsense. I'd like to think the leadership of this encyclopedia would set a good example for others to follow when writing articles, but there are way too many articles like this one that prove otherwise.

:: The evidence is overwhelming, with examples provided in the entry. All you have to do is cite some counterexamples. You can't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, the article states that Obama graduated from Harvard Law with honors. That strikes me as a "clear personal achievement". Are you suggesting, therefore, that he didn't deserve said honors, that faculty gave him an easy ride because he's African-American? --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:54, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- "'''He won a seat in the U.S. Senate after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, Alan Keyes'''." This claim is completely without merit. According to Fox News, Ryan was not forced out and the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged him to remain. The idea that '''liberals somehow obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records''' is disingenuous at the least and most likely a lie. According to Fox News, the records were released when the ''Chicago Tribune'' and Chicago TV station ''WLS'' sued. Divorce proceedings are a matter of public record unless the there is a compelling interest to make them private. According to the court, relevant portions of the divorce were kept private and the remaining portions were released. Please note that I am not quoting a liberal source for this information. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123716,00.html]

:: The records were confidential and the newspaper that sued for their relief was supportive of Obama. Yes, Jack Ryan was forced out as a result of the disclosures and no one familiar with politics credibly argues otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

- This article was unlocked for a brief time a while ago until some vandals made their presence known. Even though the article was vandalized, it actually showed some signs of improvement. As it stands now, this article belongs on an Obama-hating lunatic fringe website, not part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.

:: I don't expect this factual entry to persuade anyone who is a big supporter of [[affirmative action]], because they don't care what Obama stands for or what his experience is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

The above seems to be someone's comments, debated by ASchlafly? But there's no name attached to any of these comments? Can you put back the signatures of whoever wrote those suggestions?

As to the actual comments ASchlafly, it seems you haven't actually read your own article. You ask "Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???", and the article clearly states that he has indeed been to London and met with Tony Blair. In comparison with all other candidates for the US Presidency, this leaves him "about the same". Most US Presidents do not come to the table with a huge amount of travel experience under their belts - witness the current President, who had never been out of the Continent before becoming President. No matter what you think of the candidate, the suggestion that the only things he has achieved are because of affirmative action beggars belief and doesn't even deserve a response, it's so unutterably stupid. Finally, referring to this article as a "factual entry" is revelatory. [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:23, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

: "Western Europe" should be "continental Europe," because Obama did play second chair for an insignificant visit by a more experienced senator (Lugar) to Tony Blair. If that courtesy call is what you're hanging your hat on, then it merely underscores Obama's lack of experience. But I doubt you'd care anyway, as most Obama supporters don't support him for his experience or even his ever-changing or silent positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::I'm delighted to see that you admit you were wrong, so thank you for that - it's good to keep the record straight. Now, for comparison to the other candidates, perhaps you'd like to list the foreign travel and policy experience of your candidate of choice? John McCain is off to Israel, London and Paris I see? Obama indeed does not have the French capital in his past itineraries, but comparing his Conservapedia article to Obama's, it would seem he is FAR more widely travelled than McCain. Finally, your suggestion about affirmative action might as well be directed at Clarence Thomas, since the only requirement you seem to need to make such a comment is the colour of these gentlemen's skin?

::PS Finally, could you please put back the sigs of whoever you were responding to? it's impossible to know where these comments come from? [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly: Contrary to your opinion, I am not the clueless one here. I happen to know that the United Kingdom is a part of Western Europe so therefore it can be concluded that Obama has made a trip to Western Europe since he visited London to see Tony Blair. Since you are making the claim that his foreign policy experience is the 'lowest 10% of senators', could you provide a reference please?

:::Where is this overwhelming evidence that Obama's success is explained by affirmative action? If it is so overwhelming, then you or the person that made this assertion should have absolutely no problem providing the reference. Where is the evidence in the article? I couldn't find anything. Could you provide this allegedly 'clueless' individual, as you like to call me, the specific line number?

:::Because Ryan refused to run for office after his divorce proceedings were made public, this means, using your line of reasoning, that the 'National Republican Senatorial Committee' lacks credibility. Perhaps this should be added to the article?

:::There are a lot of alleged 'facts' in this article that are nothing more than gossip and unsupported innuendo. According to the commandments that you wrote, these items should be removed. How can this article be a part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' if no attempt is made to follow the commandments and guidelines?

:::I happen to care what Obama, Clinton, and McCain stand for because I plan to vote and I want my vote to mean something. If someone wants to base their vote on what is written in Conservapedia, then they will be seriously misinformed. --Jimmy 21:30, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

== Law Professor ==

The sentence about Obama "falsely claiming to be a constitutional law professor" should be changed. According to the University of Chicago, he was considered to be a professor. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 19:14, 29 March 2008 (EST)

:He was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor. There's a big difference. The University of Chicago only ''considers'' Obama a professor, he wasn't actually one, as he falsely claimed to be. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 21:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::You're wasting your time, Tordenvaer. Certain people on here see nothing wrong in saying someone's not a professor if it suits their purposes and/or prejudices, even when there is ample evidence otherwise. See the Richard Dawkins [[Richard_Dawkins|article]] and [[Talk:Richard_Dawkins|Talk Page]] for an extremely good example of this. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:49, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::As an aside, Lyra, considering it is, in fact, universities that bestow the title of 'professor', if the University of Chicago basically saying that, as far as they were concerned, he was a professor, isn't 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? You also state that there is a big difference between 'Senior Lecturer' and 'professor'. Read the link given by Tordenvaer. The University of Chicago completely disagrees with you there. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:57, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: In other words, if [[liberals]] like someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[liberals]] are going to call him a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. Perhaps we should add this to [[liberal]] positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Done. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:54, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Alternatively, if [[conservatives]] dislike someone's ideology, ethnicity or gender, then [[conservatives]] are going to deny that he is a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:36, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

: Really? Perhaps you can tell us who peer-reviewed Obama's work, and when, and what the outcome was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::Most likely the U of C law faculty did, repeatedly throughout his time working there, as all departments do with all faculty. The outcome was that they asked him to join the faculty full-time. In addition to the statement linked above, there is [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/701490,CST-NWS-obamaprof18.article] (para 3). They did not offer him a full-time position because they thought he was good-looking. [[User:Murray|Murray]]

:::: Well, I'll put it this way - who is more likely to be correct in who is or is not a professor? Aschlafly or the Universities of Chicago and Oxford? Personally, I'll go with the universities, and thus accept both Dawkins and Obama are professors, in one way or another. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 22:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: Certain people can't handle the ''truth'', Urushnor. Regardless of what U-Chicago's ''feeling'' is, he's a senior lecturer, not a professor. The university never gave him that title. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 23:31, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: 'The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

:::::: 'From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, '''Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School'''. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. '''Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors''', although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'[[User:Jtimber|Jtimber]] 23:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Precisely. It seems that certain people cannot handle the truth, indeed - Obama made a comment, in passing, which his opponents seized upon to try to brand him as a liar, because they thought it was wrong, as his actual title was 'Senior Lecturer', but now can't handle the truth that, in fact, 'Senior Lecturers' are regarded as professors, so the comment was correct. I also note, Lyra, that you still haven't actually answered my question - given that it is universities that bestow the title of professor, if a university saying that someone is or was a professor is not 'good enough', what, precisely, is 'good enough'? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I believe I've already answered that question. My point was that he was not full-track. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:30, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::No, from the above, your point was quite clearly that 'he was actually a "senior lecturer," NOT, a professor', to quote you exactly. The University of Chicago says he was a 'Senior Lecturer', which is considered to be a professor. So you haven't actually answered that question at all, unless you changing your point is your way of saying, 'oops, I was wrong - he ''is'' a professor, just not a full-time or tenure-track one'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 01:18, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::Allow me to explain. When he says he is a ''professor'', many people will assume he means a full-time teaching committment, regardless of U of C's technicalities. It's a bit deceitful. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::During the time he worked as a senior lecturer, he was practicing law as well. I've actually read ''The Audacity of Hope''. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 14:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't really think it's that deceitful; he's just using common parlance versus the technical term. Technically, yes, he was a senior lecturer/adjunct faculty, but I knew lecturers at the university who would hold themselves out as professors. It's not deceit, it's just simplification, I think.-[[User:DParker|DParker]] 20:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

: In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously. If someone like [[Dan Quayle]] had attempted Obama's self-serving "simplification", as you put it, then Quayle would have been strung up and run off the stage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::I totally concur--what Obama should be saying is he worked as a "part-time professor," if at all. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 20:34, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Obama held the position of senior lecturer for years, and surely understood what his title was. It doesn't seem too much to expect him not to exaggerate his credential.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:38, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

''In the academic world, precise titles are actually taken ''very'' seriously...'' Yes and no. Titles are meaningful, and indicate how prestigious a position is and generally the salary level. However, titles vary dramatically across university systems. For example, in the U. of Illinois system, Adjunct Professor is the equivalent a Lecturer at U of C - it indicates someone who is a part-time faculty member, hired solely to teach classes, either because there are not enough full-time faculty or to allow the full-timers more time for research. In the U. of California system though, an Adjunct Professor is a full-time faculty member, and UC guidelines suggest that on, for example, grant applications, an Adjunct Professor use the title of Professor to avoid confusion. So an Adjunct Professor in Champaign would be stretching it to use the title of Professor, whereas someone with the same title in LA or Berkeley would not. So titles are certainly meaningful, but their specific meaning isn't always readily apparent [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:36, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock? ==

Would someone unlock this for a brief moment? Thanks! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== First St. Francis Assisi, then Mentang Besuki ==

There's a line in the Early Life section of the bio that gets the order of Obama's Indonesian elementary schools reversed. The Catholic one was first, for almost three years. The public one was only the last year or so. The misinformation is repeated in Faith and Values section. Says his father was a nonpracticing Muslim. Other sources say atheist. His stepfather was a practicing Muslim, however. No mention of the Afrocenric theology of TUCC. See Linda Chavez' article in NR online on this. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] 10:29, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Questions about This Article ==

No offense, but this article is very biased, and much of it lacks sources. Shouldn't there be sources for it, and if there are none should it not be removed? [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 01:14, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

: 43 citations. How many more do you want?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:53, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps something to cite things that are obviously personal attacks, such as this:
"He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action.". That sounds more like an opinion than a definition of fact, and there's not citation for it anyway. Also, the lead for his article seems to be one giant summary of his political views, portrayed negatively. Very biased. Not sure how that is delt with here, but we try to keep things neutral on Wikipedia. [[User:TheNobleSith|TheNobleSith]] 10:31, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:Conservapedia does not require citations for statements like that. And even if they were there, they would just be links to conservative opinion pieces. Best to just leave it alone... the article as it is stands quite well as a reminder to visitors that this is a very different site from Wikipedia, for a variety of interesting reasons.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 00:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Image switch ==
I think you meant to say ''add'' placement bias. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama built his campaign on anti-American donations. A photo of his anti-patriotic posture reflects his campaign far more than a standard and unrevealing portrait photo does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::Here are Obama's top 20 donors: Goldman Sachs, University of California, UBS, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers (investment banking firm), Citigroup, National Amusements (who own 1400 theaters), Sidney Austin (law firm), Harvard, Google, Skadden Arps (law firm), Exelon, Morgan Stanley, Time Warner, Jones Day (law firm), Wilmerhale (law firm), Latham Watkins (more lawyers), University of Chicago, Kirkland & Ellis (lawyers), Citadel Investment Group. Not exactly a list of crazy liberals. But the point was really the comparison to all the pages of other senators here, all of which (if they have an image) have an official picture at the top. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:16, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Meaningless statistic, and only a tiny fraction of Obama's fundraising. His big money source is moveon.org types, and no one can deny that he's tapping into the stridently anti-war (and often anti-American) types. People are going to Obama's entry because he's running for president, not because he's a senator, and the photo placement should reflect that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Furthermore, I do not see how you can call forces within America anti-American, that title used to be restricted to ''foreign'' forces. Soviet Russia was anti-American. MoveOn is not. The American Colonies were anti-British, I suppose. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:18, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::You might as well give it up, before you get 90/10ed. From reading this site, it's pretty clear that on Planet Conservapedia, the GOP '''is''' America, and Liberals are all mindless robot drones created by Satan himself to DESTROY AMERICA, propelled by their disgusting glandular urges, hatred for all things Good and Holy and American and Conservative (as redundant as that is), and the occasional telepathic directive from the Ghost of Charles Darwin fnord. Thus, the very concept of [[Liberal patriotism]] is an [[oxymoron]]. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::In Soviet Russia, rules follow you! In any case, Liberal just means willing to embrace new ideas and ''change''. More people should recogize that. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I know its not really important, but the colonials mainly considered themselves British and were fighting for their British rights about up until the Decleration of Indepedence was signed. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:And after that, they would've all been hanged as traitors to Crown and Country if they'd lost. Got to remember that part... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Well, the mini-series "John Adams" is very good, but the assertion that FernoKlump makes is not correct. Originally they were fighting for the rights afforded to all British subjects, but long before the Declaration of Independence was signed, most of the "heavy hitters" had long since realized there would be no reconciliation with the Crown. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:48, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes. The Founding Fathers must have been considered very unpatriotic by the British during the Revolution. [[User:LyraBelaqua|Lyra Belaqua]] [[User talk:LyraBelaqua|talk]] 00:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Maybe most of the "heavy hitters" had realized they were fighting for their independence, but the avererage colonial didn't really realize that until the decleration. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 10:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
==Category==
Put him in [[:Category:African Americans]]
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:07, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: This is absurd. [[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:49, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::Except for segregationists [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:26, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Those were primarily Democrats, you realize? Racists are just that, and don't depend on idealogical labels to be so. I know so-called "liberals" and "conservatives" who often express racist thinking. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Shall I put [[Adam Sandler]] into [[:Category:Jewish Americans]] too, Deborah? --

:Those segregationists were southern Democrats ("Dixiecrats") and were social conservatives. Status as a Democrat or Republican doesn't necessarily label people in the past as liberal or conservative. Today Republicans tend to be conservative and Democrats tend to be liberal, but the Republican party was originally established to end slavery. Abolitionism was a VERY liberal idea at the time. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 20:56, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:: No, [[abolitionism]] came from [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]], and they were [[conservative]]. Southern Democrats (like [[Jimmy Carter]]) were not [[conservative]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:29, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::They weren't conservative if they wanted an end to slavery. Liberal, by definition, is the advocacy of change. An end to slavery would have been change. Therefore, an advocacy of the end of slavery would be liberal. Southern democrats, like Governor George Wallace, were conservatives because they sought to ''preserve'' the existing institution of segregation.

From dictionary.com:

Liberal- Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs

Conservative- Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

[[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:41, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your definition is meaningless. [[Conservatives]], for example, want big change on [[abortion]]. Use the more meaningful definitions and explanations found on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

::No, Conservatives want to ''revert'' back to before abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade. Look at that definition again. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 21:58, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::FernoKlump, your history at CP is one of endless talk, talk, talk, argue, argue, argue. Yet, coming here, you were told up-front, if by nothing else than the name, ''this is a conservative encyclopedia''. Somehow a very small number of users, feel they have a right or obligation to turn this encyclopedia into a debate site. I feel an obligation to point out to you CP wasn't put here to provide a debate vehicle for you and other liberals.

:::You might want to look up, while you are busy with that dictionary, the meaning of "goodbye". I have a feeling you're going to need it. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:19, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::TK, you probably shouldn't be indulging in personal remarks of that quality, which go against the Conservapedia Guidelines ("You must be civil. No bullying.") Your shirt is still the right color, though, so maybe you'll be okay. Just thought I'd let you know.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 22:40, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

*TomMore, please keep in mind that Conservapedia rejects the European and Wikipedia definitions of being "civil" and "bullying". Me stating facts, about arguing and endless talk, are factual, therefore conservatives do not view that as bullying, or uncivil. What is uncivil is the introduction, ''the forced introduction'', of foreign definitions that American conservatives expressly reject. Users who do nothing but post contentious comments to conservatives, and denigrate what we believe, should perhaps consider starting their own liberal encyclopedia and stop wasting time here. CP doesn't grant the right of endless arguing, talk, talk, talk. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:28, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

::Guys, this is silly. Lets end it. And he is right, this is an encyclopedia, not a debate site. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:46, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

1) I'm not a liberal.
2) I understand that this encyclopedia is supposed to have a conservative bias, but it has degenerated into a "how liberals are ruining America" encyclopedia. I really like the idea of an encyclopedia that tries to present things from a conservative view, but this site is just embarassing to the conservative cause and unrealistic (like "[[Conservatives]] don't categorize people by race", when reality says otherwise). There is a big difference between a conservative point of view and a conservative version of reality. If I deserved to be banned for fighting against the lies that make conservapedia unreliable, then ban me. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:09, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:Sorry, not in the MVSN. Doesn't count.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:11, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::MVSN? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:15, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The blackshirts (Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale) ? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:17, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Don't know who they are... I looked at [[blackshirt]]s but there's nothing there. It's just a nickname :)--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 23:20, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
I didn't see anything on conservapedia about what 'MVSN' would mean, so I thought it might be a wikipedia term. I searched and got the blackshirts, which are basically Italian fascists. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:25, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Alright, this obviously has nothing to do with improving the article, so lets end it. Thanks in advance, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:27, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

== Proposed addition ==

It is seeming like this was lost due to all the chatter on the talk page, i don't know what everybody thinks of it. here is my proposal under "faith and values" section:

Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>

Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>

Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>

: I've unprotected the page for you to edit it as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:11, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Ideologically motivated "citation needed" insertions, for statements that are not seriously disputed, are not allowed. This is not [[Wikipedia]] where that same stunt by liberals occurs repeatedly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thank-you for the explanation. My citation request was not 'ideologically motivated', it was a simple request for a reference to an 'ideologically motivated' statement. My request also follows Commandment #2, something you have been willing to overlook in many of the articles I have edited. I get the idea that I would not be afforded the same opportunity to make the same statements without references since I'm not an administrator or the founder of this encyclopedia.--Jimmy 22:17, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'm reinserting the other edit since you have no objection to it, thanks. --Jimmy 22:20, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Barack Obama's actual title was Senior Lecturer, not Professor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
: And according to his university, a senior lecturer is a professor. It's that simple. --Jimmy 22:27, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

:: You're misconstruing what the media relations department said. Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

I am really interested to know what you are basing your "Rather, it merely stated what the perception is about Senior Lecturers, and not whether that perception is true (it isn't)" on Aschlafly?
What info do you have to say it is the perception of the media dep. and not actually true?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:52, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

If you cannot give ANY evidence to back your claims up Aschlafly then the article should include what the university states. And, I might add, the media dep. is responsible for answering media enquiries hence the media dep. answering the query whether or not Obama is a prof. or not.
So ADD THE REFERENCE OR LOOK LIKE A FOOL. Your choice
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Your quarrel is with the dictionary, not with me, and the citations about the "professor" issue are well-supported by the entry. In case you have problems following a link, I'll quote the observation on the Democratic Underground site, which is also well-supported with cites: [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307]

::[Obama's] publications page lists his two autobiographical books, but no academic work of any sort .... Now, given his relatively strong academic credentials and the extent of [[affirmative action]] in academic hiring, if Obama had written articles about, well, pretty much anything, he would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position. But he didn't.

::... [H]e is not a Professor of Constitutional Law. Nor is he an assistant professor or associate professor. ...

By the way, AdenJ, any more namecalling from you in violation of our rules will result in blocking of your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
:Heh. We see what you did there--quoting the website Democratic Underground as if to show that even liberals think Obama's professor claim is invalid. In reality, of course, the DU item was posted by an anonymous commentator ("agdlp"), something anyone could do, and hardly a reliable cite given that said post provides no evidence, just links repeating the claim. I could go on that site and write a post saying that Obama is an alien from the planet Mar’xennui, but that wouldn't make it true or cite-able. And as to your (repetition of the) claim that "given his relatively strong academic credentials...Obama would undoubtedly have been able to get hired at an elite law school in a tenure-track position...but he didn't", please note that the UofChicago statement notes that Obama was offered a tenure-track position several times, but declined.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Your comments don't add anything. Look, if it makes you feel better to believe that Obama is somehow a professor, then suit yourself. By objective standards, including the dictionary, he plainly is not and never was.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:45, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::How about we compromise? "Obama has claimed he was a constitutional law professor when he was actually a Senior Lecturer." That seems to fit with the facts better, and it circumvents what is starting to amount to a semantics debate. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, that doesn't capture the false boasting. And, by the way, your other edits to this entry also do not convey the truth, as in the boasting about the poverty bill that was a non-starter and never passed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which edit was that? The only edits I've made to the page were the foreign policy experience one (which you've reverted) and helping organize the sections a bit. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question about lead ==
The opening line of the third paragraph reads "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience." While nobody can dispute the lack of military or executive experience, could his position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee count as foreign policy experience? Don't get me wrong, it's still not much experience, but it would seem to be enough to remove the foreign policy part. Thoughts? --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:41, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Mere membership on a congressional committee does not constitute "foreign policy" experience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:05, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:: It doesn't make him a scholar or an expert on it, but I would've thought it would move him out of the category of "absolutely none". --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:09, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ampersand: You are now finding out that facts are not a substitute for the world that the Conservapedia leadership has constructed. It is a fact that Obama has foreign policy experience, but that does not matter to the people in charge. I have brought up issues like this numerous times on many other articles but usually nothing happens. Nothing happens to the articles this is, but I have been blocked on numerous occasions for trying to make this encyclopedia reflect the real world. Good luck! --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 19:59, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Merely being on a committee is not foreign policy experience. That is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You are absolutely 100% correct. But it has been demonstrated that Obama has made overseas trips with the Foreign Affairs Committee and has discussed policy with other world leaders and diplomats. This is a fact that cannot be denied in face of the irrefutable evidence that has been provided. No matter how limited his foreign policy experience has been; the sentence in the opening paragraph (Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience) is laughingly false. Presenting such inaccurate information as fact only gives ammunition to Conservapedia's critics. There are plenty of other factual criticisms that can be leveled at Obama without making up dumb factoids. --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 20:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lead section question ==

In the second paragraph, this sentence "According to political expert and Republican strategist Karl Rove, became his "political mentors," and launched is state Senate campaign and subsequent national political career" seems to be missing a word. Does anyone know what it is?

== Ok, there is so much misinformation here idk where to start ==

I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives, but there is a ton of bad information here that really is not true and to discriminate against this man is blatently racist, especially in the way its being done: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" wtf people?? First of all, generalization such as this is a breach of most online encyclopedia protocol. Second of all, the assumption that he benefited from affirmative action is nothing more than an assumption, NOT fact. He went to Harvard, thus he is a smart man. Furthermore, why should he have to provide proof in a "clear personal achievement" that he does not rely on affirmative action? Assuming that a black man cannot succeed without affirmative action is not only racist, but also untrue. Next controversial statement in this article: "Barack Obama has captivated black and educated white voters, largely because of his race". How can anyone make that assessment? It is, once again, based off pure imagination rather than fact, as is further demonstrated by the lack of any sources backing it. The author also claims that Bill Clinton dismissed Barack's claim that he was against the war from the start as a "fairy tale". I checked the source of this statement, which is in actuality a website acknowledging Clinton's apology towards the "fairy tale" comment. Furthermore we must realize that Hillary and Bill Clinton are in fact married, which might perhaps explain why Bill Clinton might want to tarnish the rep of Clinton's main opponent. Again, more BS: "Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience" Sure, he isn't as experienced as Hillary, but generally, when a candidate runs for the presidency, they do not have experience in being president. Another ridiculous claim here: Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in physics, yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." I checked up on this source as well, which has been misinterpreted by the author of this page here. Obama wrote a paper on the constitution, to which he used an analogy of space-time physics. In much the same way George Orwell's animal farm uses a farm to relate to communism. Orwell didn't have to be a farmer to write the book, and Obama doesn't need to be a nuclear physicist to read up on relativity. If anything, Obama's ability to understand the basic gist of physics without taking physics courses actually lends credence to his own intellect. Something that didn't come as a result of affirmative action. AND... he can say "nuclear". Neo-cons have no right to bash intelligence. Further on in the article, the author claims that "Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses[9] on the Constitution.[10]" Note the sources. They aren't sources. They don't lead anywhere or cite anything, but are just statements. AND they have nothing to do with this statement. If this encyclopedia is so trustworthy, why can't it provide proper sources for its misinformation?? Later on, the author makes the statement that Barack Obama has voted present 130 time in the IL senate and this is a reason to disbelieve him. This is in fact, true information, but I do have a problem with the heavy slant. Obama's aides say Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. Also, in Illinois law it is not unusual to protest bills with a present vote. You can check up on my facts, because it is found in the same source our author used to make the claim that Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times." In the second paragraph, the author says "He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at The University of Chicago Law School as of 2004.[14] He is no longer active at the school". Whereas the same source that was cited claims that "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Thus he WAS a professor after all. Check your information next time. I don't mind conservatives, in the old sense of the word. A true conservative worked to maintain the rights of business owners and left the economy alone. A true conservative kept taxes low and government spending no higher. What we get today are social conservatives. People who believe in the white christian male america. People who claim that the only way a smart, educated black man could be running for president is due to affirmative action. You criticize Reverend Wright for saying "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God." Look at yourselves. Give this man a chance; he did not go to Harvard because he was black nor does he recieve the support of both white and black america, red and blue america, and male and female america because he is black. This article is not trustworthy, or factual, but it is a bash. Now I am too tired to go through the remaining half of the article. Time to get a kick out of the Kangaroo one.
:I stopped reading after your bigoted "''I know you all are fundamentalist social-conservatives,'''" remark. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I didn't even have to read that far. The above long-winded rant, too incoherent to read, let alone understand, illustrates the [[liberal]] style. I doubt he'd even agree with a conservative who says that "2+2=4".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Annie Oakley ==
This one needs to be phrased a little better. Just because something is outside of one's generation doesn't mean they can't possibly know what it is. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Nothing in Obama's background suggests he would have any idea who Annie Oakley was, and all evidence (including Obama's age) suggests he wouldn't. The conclusion by USA Today is self-evident.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::I still think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that because someone was born after a certain date they're immune to cultural influences preceding them. Also, the conclusion's by a syndicated columnist, not USA Today itself. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Even John McCain wasn't alive when Annie Oakley died :D . And even Obama knows that Oakley was a female gun shooter. He was using it to make it appear that Hillary exaggerated her experience with guns as a child. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 20:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I am fifty and I know who Annie Oakley was. I just saw a PBS special on her and she is the subject of a popular musical that has been running for years. This Annie Oakley thing is just plain stupid. Makes you look like idiots. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:04, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

The "Choice" bill is not just "supported by" the [[abortion]] industry, but is for its direct benefit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Lapel pin ==
The sentence "Notice Obama's lack of an American flag lapel pin" completely ignores how he's not wearing a jacket. No lapel, no lapel pin. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 00:43, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Obama doesn't wear the flag when he is wearing a jacket either. By the way, I do think pins work on shirts! The caption could profitably omit the word "lapel".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: True, and criticism of him for it is valid. I'm still uncomfortable with the sentence being there at all since it seems like kind of a weak way to attack him on it, though. A more effective attack would be to find pictures of McCain and Hillary wearing them and one of him not and putting them together side by side in a single image to illustrate him not wearing a lapel pin. That'd drive the point home more effectively, I think. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:49, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

'''it seems like kind of a weak way to attack him on it'''....So, is the purpose here to attack him, or to write an accurate encyclopedia article about him? And a bit off-topic, why does it matter if he wears a lapel pin or not? Maybe it didn't occur to him to do so, or maybe he thought it was tacky (all lapel pins are, IMO). It doesn't make him an evil Communist. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:01, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== How Mike Ditka Unintentionally Boosted Obama's Rise to Prominence ==

An observation that I've not seen commented on in the press...

When scandal ridden Jack Ryan's Illinois US Senate campaign was falling apart, Obama looked like a shoe in....until ex-Bear's coach Mike Ditka seriously began considering pleas from some top Republcians that he should run for the Senate. And Ditka was doing interviews about his and his wife's thoughts on the matter, giving IL Republicans considerable hope. Suddenly, Democrats feared that even Chicago's normally reliable voters might hand the popular Ditka a landslide.

It was during this two or three week frenzy over the question of whether Ditka would run that Obama, with little seniority and experience, was picked to give a major address at the Democrat's National Convention endorsing John Kerry...a move clearly intended to give Obama a boost with Illinois voters. Obama ran with the opportunity and gave a speech that garnered lot's of favorable press and turned him into a media darling and pushed him toward a an extremely early presidential run. In my opinion, his rise to stardom was indirectly sparked by the fear that Mike Ditka might "steal" the IL senate seat out from under the Democrats. Unfortunately, Mike (apparantly at the behest of his wife) decided the Senate life wasn't for him afterall.

Without Mike's near run, Obama never would have become such a media darling...at least not so early in his career.--[[User:Billy21|Billy21]] 13:38, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

: Interesting analysis, but I doubt one evening at the Democratic National Convention had much to do with this. I'd say Hillary's electoral weakness is a bigger factor. And, of course, the [[liberal media]] has long been obsessed with race. When [[Rush Limbaugh]] commented that he felt a media focus on race influenced the choice of quarterback on an NFL team, he had to quit his job as a sports analyst.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I always thought the media's obsession with race and gender was incorrect in this race. From my experience, the main dividing line in the Democratic Party right now is generational. Clinton represents the baby boomers while Obama represents the youth, which is a large part of why her strength has been older voters and his strength has been younger ones. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 15:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::: I think there is a higher correlation in voting based on race than on age here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Race is definitely a factor, but within the white Democratic electorate you can see some definite splits that indicate a generational gap. The wealthier you are, the higher your education and the lower your age, the more likely you are to vote for Obama. The lower your income, the lower your education and the higher your age, the more likely you are to vote for Clinton. Now, given that many senior citizens, especially those who were blue-collar workers, are on fixed incomes and pensions, we could partially tie income into age. Education-wise, there tend to be more college graduates in the younger demographics than in the older demographics simply because young people have more educational opportunities than their parents or grandparents had. Now of course there are exceptions, just like there are exceptions to everything. But personally? I view the Democratic primary as a fight between my generation and a generation that's still in a metaphorical way fighting the Vietnam War. That's this young college liberal's take on the Democratic race. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 16:10, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

==Affirmative action==

* He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]].

Who said this? Should we endorse it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:49, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Joseph Farah: [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=58632 The affirmative-action president]

Maybe we should give him credit; I would hate to be accused of [[plagiarism]] over this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:Here's some things I found on the subject: [http://www.cnbc.com/id/23579121/][http://www.slate.com/id/2187718/][http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=][http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070515_obama_cools_on_affirmative_action/] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

: I think Conservapedia had the term first, see [[Affirmative Action President]], but I'm all for adding citations to others who also use it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::From a couple of the links I provided above, the remark may have come from Geraldine Ferraro. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:02, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:::No, I think the Ferraro kerfuffle was early March. CP's article on the subject began in January. I think all of these other johnny-come-latelys need to give Andy credit.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:22, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::This quote comes from here [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjA2MjUwZTE1MmFmMDZjMjM4YmVlZjQ1YjBjYWY1MzY=]:
:::::''"This presents Barack Obama with unique opportunity. Having campaigned against the passage of the Michigan initiative, can he chart a new path now that he is running for president? And, having admitted he attended Harvard law school because of affirmative action, can he now say the time has come to try something different?"'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I've checked some more and apparently Conservapedia coined the term [[Affirmative Action President]] first. The uses by others were subsequent to the entry here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:19, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations Andy... I guess you coined it first! :) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:10, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Clarence Thomas benefitted from affirmative action but I don't see any reference to that in the article about him. Are you claiming that Barack Obama wouldn't have excelled without affirmative action? If so, why not make that claim about Clarence Thomas? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Because [[Clarence Thomas]] has real achievements and, I might add, real principles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

== Reopening request to erase professor sentence ==

The accusation that Obama was not a professor at University of Chicago has been thoroughly debunked by the University itself. Does anyone mind if I remove the offending sentence? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 19:32, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
: Also note the contents of source #15, which is the press release by the University of Chicago on the subject. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 19:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Not even the media relations folks at the University of Chicago claim [[Obama]] "was a professor." He obviously does not satisfy the dictionary definition of a professor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

:::On the contrary, they do indeed claim he was a professor- which settles the issue. Any other claim is weaseling.

:::[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html] "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." Actually, that seems to be exactly what the media relations folks at the University of Chicago say. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 23:16, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I have heard complain that liberals take thing so literally and now you splitting hairs over the dictionary definition of 'professor'. I bet that if Obama was a conservative/republican you would heaps praise on his professorship.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:42, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

: You bet wrong. Conservatives don't insist that someone was a professor when he really wasn't. As to the media relations department at the [[University of Chicago]], reread its statement again and again until you realize that not even it said Obama "was a professor." Acting or serving "as a professor" is not the same as "being a professor."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

I have been following the US elections very closely, through BBC, FOX, CNN etc and websites and the only place I have heard Obama's professorship is here! I think the point to peoples debate is that the want the sentence removed from the article all together, not an insistence that the article state he is a professor. Its not even relevant to his presidential campagin!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:40, 2 May 2008 (EDT)