Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Same-sex marriage

2007-10-26T22:00:20Z

Calebdelworth84:

In regards to '''homosexuality and marriage''', the same-sex "marriage" movement is seeks to destroy the sanctity of marriage by using political power to enforce a redefinition of the concept{{fact}}. The aim is to prevent any criticism, particularly religious-based criticism, of [[homosexual]] relationships.

The rationale goes like this:
*Marriage is good.
*No one can criticize what is good.
*A [[same-sex union]], defined as marriage, is good.
*Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions.

__TOC__

Combined with [[hate speech]] rules and [[hate crime]] laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality{{fact}}. "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see [[fighting words]]).
Such laws will open up a new wave of militant homosexual violence{{fact}}. Just as "He insulted my wife" can be used as defense against an [[assault]] charge (although not successfully). The preceding sentence is the most singularly stupid thing I have ever read in my life. I hope that the editor was being ironic. No, actually I think I prefer to think they were serious. It is far more hilarious that way.

Attempts to refer to [[civil union]]s as "marriage", or to require people who disagree with homosexuality to honor such unions.

It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex. Social conservatives regard it as immoral{{fact}}, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations - and virtually all other established religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,<ref>E.g. In Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." ''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] refers to the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to the fact that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Abuse of the term was unheard of a few decades ago, however these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[gay rights]] activists. In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow "[[civil union]]s" between two people of the same sex, and one, Massachusetts, currently allows it under the name "marriage." These "marriages" are not recognized by the Federal government.

== Background ==
In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in some states. It was concerned about the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits gay marriage itself—must honor gay marriages performed in another state. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow "same-sex marriage" but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. As of 2007, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine also provide civil unions or domestic partnerships. Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.<ref>Because of an established Massachusetts law, Massachusetts same-sex marriages are all-but-limited to Massachusetts residents. The law says that an out-of-state couple cannot be married if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. The same-sex marriages are not recognized under federal law or in most other states.</ref>

The religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple.

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
James Dobson of ''Focus on the Family'' suggests that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

The ''Defend Marriage'' organization states, as an issue, that legalizing same-sex "marriage" "would make it more difficult to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children" and says that "Studies show that the incidence of child abuse in same-sex 'families' is many times higher than in traditional families."<ref> [http://www.defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/FAQshtml/faqshtml.cfm Defend Marriage]</ref> According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

==Homosexual domestic violence==
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]]

A particularly worrisome factor among [[gay rights]] [[activist]]s is the prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships. One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, all preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse. Due to the incomplete nature of studies and lack of focus thus far, what is commonly reported is that the incidence of gay domestic abuse are "as prevalent as heterosexual relationships." This on its face is true, but it would be more accurate to declare "the incidence of gay domestic abuse are ''at least'' as prevalent as heterosexual relationships."

83% of gays report they have been emotionally abused by homosexual partners. <ref>[http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/ A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample], The Journal of Family Violence, Publisher Springer Netherlands, Volume 15, Number 3, September, 2000, Pages 281-293. ISSN 0885-7482 </ref> One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Morality cannot be legislated. OH MY GOD, THE IRONY!!!!!

Although the studies are decades behind heterosexual studies on violence between men and women, the indications are that homosexual relationships suffer from a much higher degree of physical violence than heterosexual relationships. Several studies have been made, and more are ongoing. However, it is safe to say at this juncture, that homosexual domestic relationships suffer from violence two to four times higher than the well studied incidence in heterosexual relationships.

==See also==
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Same-sex marriage

2007-10-26T21:58:28Z

Calebdelworth84:

In regards to '''homosexuality and marriage''', the same-sex "marriage" movement is seeks to destroy the sanctity of marriage by using political power to enforce a redefinition of the concept{{fact}}. The aim is to prevent any criticism, particularly religious-based criticism, of [[homosexual]] relationships.

The rationale goes like this:
*Marriage is good.
*No one can criticize what is good.
*A [[same-sex union]], defined as marriage, is good.
*Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions.

__TOC__

Combined with [[hate speech]] rules and [[hate crime]] laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality{{fact}}. "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see [[fighting words]]).
Such laws will open up a new wave of militant homosexual violence{{fact}}. Just as "He insulted my wife" can be used as defense against an [[assault]] charge (although not successfully). The preceding sentence is the most singularly stupid thing I have ever read in my life. I hope that the editor was being ironic. No, actually I think I prefer to think they were serious. It is far more hilarious that way.

Attempts to refer to [[civil union]]s as "marriage", or to require people who disagree with homosexuality to honor such unions.

It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex. Social conservatives regard it as immoral{{fact}}, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations - and virtually all other established religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,<ref>E.g. In Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." ''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] refers to the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to the fact that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Abuse of the term was unheard of a few decades ago, however these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[gay rights]] activists. In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow "[[civil union]]s" between two people of the same sex, and one, Massachusetts, currently allows it under the name "marriage." These "marriages" are not recognized by the Federal government.

== Background ==
In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in some states. It was concerned about the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits gay marriage itself—must honor gay marriages performed in another state. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow "same-sex marriage" but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. As of 2007, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine also provide civil unions or domestic partnerships. Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.<ref>Because of an established Massachusetts law, Massachusetts same-sex marriages are all-but-limited to Massachusetts residents. The law says that an out-of-state couple cannot be married if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. The same-sex marriages are not recognized under federal law or in most other states.</ref>

The religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple.

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
James Dobson of ''Focus on the Family'' suggests that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

The ''Defend Marriage'' organization states, as an issue, that legalizing same-sex "marriage" "would make it more difficult to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children" and says that "Studies show that the incidence of child abuse in same-sex 'families' is many times higher than in traditional families."<ref> [http://www.defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/FAQshtml/faqshtml.cfm Defend Marriage]</ref> According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

==Homosexual domestic violence==
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]]

A particularly worrisome factor among [[gay rights]] [[activist]]s is the prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships. One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, all preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse. Due to the incomplete nature of studies and lack of focus thus far, what is commonly reported is that the incidence of gay domestic abuse are "as prevalent as heterosexual relationships." This on its face is true, but it would be more accurate to declare "the incidence of gay domestic abuse are ''at least'' as prevalent as heterosexual relationships."

83% of gays report they have been emotionally abused by homosexual partners. <ref>[http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/ A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample], The Journal of Family Violence, Publisher Springer Netherlands, Volume 15, Number 3, September, 2000, Pages 281-293. ISSN 0885-7482 </ref> One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Morality cannot be legislated.

Although the studies are decades behind heterosexual studies on violence between men and women, the indications are that homosexual relationships suffer from a much higher degree of physical violence than heterosexual relationships. Several studies have been made, and more are ongoing. However, it is safe to say at this juncture, that homosexual domestic relationships suffer from violence two to four times higher than the well studied incidence in heterosexual relationships.

==See also==
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]

==Reference==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-10-26T21:52:31Z

Calebdelworth84:

[[/1|Archive 1]]

==Protests==

Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
: just to get the whole picture a sentence or two should mention protests [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::See what the others think. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
this article needs a "criticisms" subsection in order to be fair. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 22:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:The only criticism I can think of is, why can not I find articles on Google articles Anne Coulter wrote three years ago, that I know are there? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
::Are the files/articles still on the site where they were originally? The google cache doesn't keep everything until the end of time. If they are still there, is there a robots.txt that prevents google from spidering it? Have you checked other search engines too? If you know the name of the article you might be able to find a reference to it and then use the wayback machine to find an archived copy of it (again, given that the wayback machine wasn't prevented from spidering it either). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I am only going by memory; I got vivid recall in detail of [[meme]]s, yet using them as search terms yields zilch. Hence, I would be reluctant to allow any sort of "criticism", there seems to be a pretty active effort to silence and defame her, and I see no cause whatsoever why CP should be party to it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:57, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::: There are many ways for site administrators to block spiders from indexing the site. Additionaly, newspapers and caches only have so much storage and tend not to store every single article for eternity - especially opinion pieces. With person who is in the public spotlight, a significant amount of material is and it can be difficult to find older articles that have dropped back in search relevance. Additionaly, if you are a person in the media and you want your material to be found later, make sure you archive a copy on your own web space and don't prevent spiders from searching for it. Are any of these articles you mention on her own website? It has a column archive which would presumably have what you are looking for. There is also an archive of columns that she wrote for http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp . Are the articles you are looking for in either of those lists? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:11, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting that you say you can't find any criticism of Ann Coulter. It tells me that bias has blinded you to reality. Ann makes many interesting, relevant, and valid points. Her personal (ad-hominem) attacks also border on the insane. You'd rather just deal with the former, and ignore the latter, because why?

If you want the intellectual and moral high ground, if you want to claim "truth", move past these kind of attacks, and at very least talk about what they are. I think Coulter's personal attacks are geared to make the feebleminded snicker. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 16:58, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Odd, and here I have always thought her remarks were intended for the more intellectual, given her frequent use of words most citizens do not understand or forgotten the meaning of. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

do you mean statements like this? "Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly" -ann coulter [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 14:04, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:Cite an instance where that's not true. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:33, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:: Are you serious? You believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was driven by Satan and lied constantly? Or that Bobby Kennedy was? Or Susan B. Anthony? Or Rev. V. Gene Robinson? Or Cecil Williams? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:54, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Here's the point about [[deceit]]: the biggest victim of deceit is when the deceitful person begins beleiving his/her/it/transgender's own lies. Thus, a person driven by Satan can lie to themself that they are not, when in fact they actually are. Now, if you are a rational person, you surely can understand this perfectly logical point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
Jesus? His message was love. He was anti-violence. Pretty liberal, eh? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:32, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
:Love is the liberal message? All I hear is spewing hate. You might have love confused with unnatural acts of copulation, which is pretty much all the Democratic party & liberalism has stood for now for the past 10 or 15 years. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:58, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
*Mtur, in today's world, where Katie Curic is attacked by Liberal whackos at moveon.org for reporting fairly about Iraq, I don't think Bobby Kennedy, who was the one who personally approved the wiretapping of MLK, would last a year in public life. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:10, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

"spewing hate" pretty much sums up my criticism of ann coulter. I'm not here to fight the big conservo vs. lib battle, to debate the bible vs other ideas - just to help write conservapedia. Ann coulter says hateful things. She's certainly an intellectual, and makes people think, but - to sum it up- i think the entry loses perspective and validity by not examining her methods in detail. If we all thought like ann spoke, where would we be as a society? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
:Please refrain from spewing hate against Ann Coulter; Coulter in reality is parody of liberals we've all been forced to accept as rational spokespeople for liberal ideals for more than half a century. Libs can dish it out, but when a Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage pantomimes liberal's ideas of rational discourse and civility on public affairs, suddenly it becomes hate speech. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

I don't think she's doing parody, or pantomiming, but more like trying to expose liberal viewpoints as stupid and rediculous by taking over the top counter-arguments. things like saying Darfur is not a real genocide. there is a political message there, but if you want to talk reality, look at how hateful that statement is. mabye you (and many others) think it's okay to say they wished that mcveigh had bombed everyone at the NYT, or "i think women should be armed but not vote". but your reasons must be hateful ones. ann coulter is a self described "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative". i dare you to respond without a single reference to "liberals". [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 12:11, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
:The Darfur genocide comment is exactly a parody of respected liberal spokespeople and arguments; very much in the same vein as "General Betray-Us."

:To deny these types of vicious, liberal snarks and smears is not considered acceptable, and respected, borders on trolling. Why just yesterday I read an AP report that said "in other bad economic news" [http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/09/16/jobless_claims_soar_by_71000/]; this sort of trite trash really gets old very quickly. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

ok, she's doing parody about genocide? people getting butchered? i don't get it- what's the point? is it funny that people are calling for action in the Sudan? I agree with you re: "bad economic news today" but (im assuming you're percieving it as a knock against W) those kinds of headlines occur regardless of who is in office. reporters want to make a story out of something. plus, right now genuinely are a few bad economic things happening. more knocks against conservatives? yeah, mabye. and mabye more reporters just happen to be liberal.

you say coulter's genocide comments are parody just like movon.org's general betray-us is. then you use it as an example of "vicious, liberal snarks and smears". thus, coulter's genocide comment is also vicious, snark and smear. just like I said. if you want to talk about moveon.org. let me say that i don't think they're helping anything in this country, much less liberalism.

all in all, i tend to think ann coulter is a conservative middle finger to the liberal left. and conservatives like it. end of story.

[[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 08:45, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

BTW, your link above is to a 2005 article.

== Coulter & Sarcasm ==

I think some consideration should be given to the view that almost all of Coulter's positions are too peurile to be seriously held, and that her entire body of work must be satirical and intended to make a mockery of anyone who finds her points to be at all insightful if taken at face value.

Coulter using sarcasm is mean spirited. Hillary or Gore using it, is merely highlighting a point. Moveon.org stating in a full page advertisement a respected and dedicated General a traitor is "excess". Giuliani responding in the same venue, calling them out for that abomination is "elevating mud throwing and personal attacks very early in the election process". Can you not see how this goes? Do you really feel MSM is fair? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:00, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

i definately see what you're saying, and mabye it exposes the bias that reporters have. however, coulter takes her sarcasm to the next level, let's be honest. 08:48, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:No, sometimes when Coulter uses sarcasm it is mean-spirited, but if you ever actually have read an entire book chapter (or several columns) all the way through, you'll see that she uses sarcasm primarily as an attention-getting device. She doesn't actually hate her ideological opponents: she is heaping more ridicule on their faulty thinking than on them as people.

:In that spirit, let me emphasize that ''only an idiot would think I was literally impugning your intelligence''! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

::I think it's possible for two reasonable people to come to two different conclusions about Coulter's writing style. I think you're a reasonable person, Ed, and I think you believe what you just said about her. I believe that I am a reasonable person as well, and I think (having read a dozen or so of her columns and 1.5 of her books) that she's fairly mean-spirited and full of anger and condescension if not actual hatred. If it's an act, it's so good as to render the question moot. Or so says I, at least. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-doesn't like lib gasbags either....''
:::This might be expected of her, having to live in New York City and all. The atmosphere sure is intolerant and suffocating of dissent and free thinkers like Coulter. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*shrug* You're welcome to let people off the hook like that if you prefer. I don't. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-o/~Dif'rent Strokes to rule the world, yes it does... o/~''
::::On balance, she probably should be applauded and encouraged for standing up to the intolerance and intimidation of minority thought in place like New York City, and cowering before bullies and fascists only encourages them. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:04, 21 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ok, applaud away. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 00:22, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: well, i for one am glad that the majority is outright against hate-mongering vitriol, regardless of those subtle messages encoded within for the more intellectual among us. It actually bodes well for our country. However, perhaps i'm just a liberal driven by Satan and am simply lying to myself about it. What was it you were saying about facism and stifiling minority dissent with bullying? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 10:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

<--
When the political consulting team of [[James Carville]], [[Larry Flynt]], and [[Paul Begala]] cease their antics, Larry Flynt retires, wills his entire estate to an orphanage in Trust, and stops trying set-up and blackmail people like [[Jim Jeffords]] and [[Larry Craig]], is the day Ann Coulter will be reined in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm all for criticizing ALL of the above people for their poor words and bad actions. Deal? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I guess we need Flynt & Begala entries then. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Go right ahead, what with this being a wiki and all you should have no problem. You work on those, and leave the people interested in the Coulter criticisms to take care of those. Everyone ends up happy, and CP remains fair. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::::This Coulterism [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&email] isn't just being sarcastic, its the basis for badly needed new article. [[institutional racial hoaxism]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:33, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Legal career ==

Can we have an entry on Ms. Coulter's legal career. Assuming, of course, that she has one? [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Alberto R. Gonzales

2007-10-26T21:44:55Z

Calebdelworth84:

wow, really nothing else here? lol, anybody been watching the news AT ALL?

I cleaned up the introduction to make it sound less like a high school yearbook article. --[[User:RWest]] 12:21 26 July 2007

Just a friendly warning: Any more attempts at racial smears/slanders will result in blocking. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:47, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

It makes no sense at all to call a person "intellectually rigorous". Well, it makes some sense, but it's certainly not within the usual usage of the phrase.

Also, there are plenty of scandals more serious than the firing of the attorneys in which Gonzalez has been involved. Some mention of the NSA domestic surveillance scandal and allegations of perjury would be nice.

As for the attorney incident, though I'm sure there are people who think the actions taken were illegal, the event can be scandalous without being illegal. It is reasonable to object to the overpoliticization of government offices, and to deny that purely political firings are bad. It is, however, pretty childish to complain about the "liberal media", as if the desire of the public for its administrators not to fire public officials without explanation was totally manufactured by some monolithic liberal media monopoly.

Talk:Alberto R. Gonzales

2007-10-26T21:14:02Z

Calebdelworth84:

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-10-26T21:07:33Z

Calebdelworth84:

{{protected|TK}}
[[/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! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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)

== 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)

== 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

== 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)

== 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.

== 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 Anthropgenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out greenhouse gases 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 conseveratives 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)

==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)

== 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]]

::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]]

:*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]]

== 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)

Talk:Social Democracy

2007-10-26T21:00:04Z

Calebdelworth84: New page: The quote by Friedrich Hayek should be removed. If the article were longer and structured differently the quote might belong in a criticism subcategory or something. As it is now, it just...

The quote by Friedrich Hayek should be removed. If the article were longer and structured differently the quote might belong in a criticism subcategory or something. As it is now, it just seems as if it were thrown in as a petty smear. What may have seemed true in 1945 doesn't apply to modern civil libertarian social democracies.