Your edits are not primarily "factual;" they take issue with the presentation of the subject, which is based on ideological premises. Note that Conservapedia does not support a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) like Wikipedia does, but rather a conservative, Christian,
YEC one. --Economist 17:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)
- Had to (above strike), Economist, as Mr. Schlafly maintains that will not be our emphasis, insofar as religion goes. --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)
- My apologies TK; I assumed that Conservapedia's stated POV was similar to that of CreationWiki, which explicitly endorses YEC. I'll keep that in mind. --Economist 17:55, 24 February 2009 (EST)
Are you sure you want to edit this page further? You are obviously in disagreement with what is presented. The entire page is a rebuke of global warming orthodoxy. Maybe you should start a counter-arguments page.--jpatt 13:04, 2 March 2009 (EST)
- But surely your statement says something about what is wrong with the article. It purports to be an article about Global Warming but as you say it is in fact simply a rebuke. I understand there are people who disagree with the concept of global warming but as someone who is currently studying the subject I think I can help here. The issue needn't be a political one as has been framed here. Though of course there are politicians and groups who use global warming to meet their own ends there is no reason why the article on the subject should be distracted from the actual science (which almost universally accepts global warming as fact) by political squabbles. RobertWDP 14:31, 2 March 2009 (EST)
- The disagreement we have has to do with the "man-made" part of it. The scientists who "say" man is causing it are doing so in an effort to get money, specifically money from the U.S. These same scientists refuse to acknowledge the sun's influence in the matter; they refuse to acknowledge natural events as contributing factors, such as a volcanic eruption; it is man in general, and the American man in particular. I put "say" in quote marks because of the fact that we have to take these people at their word, or so they want us to think. What they "say" about it does not make it a fact. Karajou 14:41, 2 March 2009 (EST)
- Well first off let me address the scientific issues you raise. For one thing, volcanic events would cause a short-term decrease in temperatures due to particulates. However, due to carbon dioxide, volcanoes can indeed cause warming in the long-term, however, the amounts released in recent times are nowhere near enough to affect the climate as drastically as is the case. Scientists have also repeatedly addressed the sun's influence and have repeatedly found the effect to be negligible relative to the size of the change we are talking about. The change we are talking about is a rise of 0.8 degrees Celsius in 100 years. This is huge in relative terms, and is completely unprecedented in terms of its magnitude and rate for the entire period of earth's climate history which has been reconstructed. Natural forcings have repeatedly been shown to be unable to account for this massive change, which makes sense since no change of scale and rate has occurred before. Studies of global warming virtually always discuss natural forcings and it is imperative that they are included. A climate model cannot possibly be constructed without these natural forcings and it is simply a lack of understanding of the science, along with its distortion by some, that leads to the factual mistakes in the article in question.
And whilst certain people are all too willing to suggest that scientists who find evidence of anthropogenic global warming are in fact biased as a result of grants and their allocation, they do not raise the same point about the so called 'sceptics' to whom a similar criticism can and has been applied even more intensely with regards to receiving money that can be traced back to fossil fuel based industries for example. Whilst there are a very small minority of 'scientists' who may be unscrupulous in their research in order to suit an agenda, this is most certainly not the norm and these scientists are quickly discredited amongst the scientific community. Whilst the assertion is that there is much money to made in environmental circles, there is much more to be made from supporting the big oil industries for example, so such claims don't stand up to scrutiny.
Indeed you point out one of the major problems in traversing the spheres of science and the public, since most of the public does not have the necessary background to take in all the scientific studies in their raw form. This is not helped by distrust stirred up by a few who do in fact have an anti-science agenda, who wrongly claim expertise where they have none and push real science out of the way through distorting its findings and misleading people. Whilst some people claim there is no consensus within science on climate change, in fact if you look at independent studies, those not carried out by those actually engaged in climate change research and receiving funding from those without directly invested interests in the matter, then you can see that there is almost universal consensus within science on the reality of global warming. In fact, although the media in general is rightly pointing out the reality of climate change, they are inadvertently, although in some cases deliberately, helping to create the false impression that there is no consensus. This is done by giving increased weight to sceptical views in articles which implies more controversy than there actually is. They may compare a for and against person in the same piece, suggesting an even split when in fact the for person is on eof tens of thousands whereas the against is only from a handful in reality. As such, the media's concept of 'balance' does not necessarily equal accuracy in its reporting. It also does not help that the issue is being looked at through a political lens. Though you may disagree with the people who often support the fight against climate change that need not tarnish your views on the issue itself. RobertWDP 15:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)
- Outside of your tiny island nation, RobertWDP, there are more than a tiny minority of scientists who disagree that man has anything to do with "Global Warming". That you seemingly don't know about this could be deliberate obfuscation, or just might speak to the bullying tactics of those who have a hidden agenda, punishing the West for success, which really makes their deceit one of socialist economics. There are hundreds of major league scientists who have not subscribed to the "caused by man" idiocy. I invite you to stop adding Euro-Socialist group think to this encyclopedia. --₮K/Admin/Talk 15:42, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Robert, you touched most of the bases in your remarks. I will just rebut 2 or 3 points.
- ... disagree with the concept of global warming
- The concept of global warming is actually two distinct things:
- the observation that average global surface air temperature has gone up (since around 1850)
- the theory that this is largely caused by human activity
- No one on this page disagrees with the first "concept". We've seen the data and the graphs. Temperatures are up a full degree (Fahrenheit), maybe a degree and a half (0.8 C). When you say "disagree with ... global warming" you are confusing the temperature increase with the cause.
- The concept of global warming is actually two distinct things:
- ... The issue needn't be a political one as has been framed here.
- We are not "framing" global warming as political. We distinguish clearly between the scientific issue and the politics. Scientists know that temperature has gone up and down many times before. The cycle is around 1,500 years long and is apparently related to solar activity. (Not so much the intensity of sunlight but the effect of the solar wind on cosmic rays reaching the earth (see cloud formation). Politicians and pressure groups have been making misleading statements about the science, and that is what we are countering here. This requires a rebuttal of the false scientific statements.
- ... no reason why the article on the subject should be distracted from the actual science
- Our global warming article aims to discus the science. If some mention is made of false statements made by those with a political motive, then perhaps you can help us achieve better separation between science and politics by moving these non-scientific arguments from the global warming article into Global warming controversy. Would you like to help?
- ... the actual science (which almost universally accepts global warming as fact)
- Here you are confusing science with scientists, and once again confusing "warming" with the theory about warming. We cover the science, as well as statements and surveys indicating how many scientists support the theory or question it. Clearly, less than a majority accept the theory.
- But when you say "accept global warming" you must distinguish between the fact that temperature is up from the theory that human activity caused this rise. You do want to make this distinction, don't you? --Ed Poor Talk 09:39, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
A common mistake that conservatism opponents make, when they come to visit us here, is to assume that 'admitting an error' would result in a penalty. That is silly. We do not penalize sincerity. If you admit that you made a mistake, we will be quick to forgive you! :-)
So, rather than argue that something "isn't really against the rules", just acknowledge the admin correction, and agree to follow the rule. If there was ambiguity, or if the admin is actually changing the rule in mid-discussion, just go with the flow. If you're really here to help, than we really need your friendly cooperation. Thank you. --Ed Poor Talk 08:05, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
. Christian Cross
Thanks. --Joaquín Martínez 10:17, 1 April 2009 (EDT)