Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Global warming

2013-08-22T01:05:03Z

CenterK:

Merge with [[Science of global warming]]? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

good idea

== Let's put our thinking caps on ==
You guys are right that there isn't a widespread popular consensus for global climate warming change, but as a conservative I feel like we should try to figure out what is really going on instead of going with the current popular trends. There must be a reason that the National Academy of Science -a non partisan organization- concluded that "a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems", and that 97% of global scientists studying the issue have built a consensus around this idea. While I am still not convinced, I think we need to take a second look at the evidence instead of flatly denying global warming's existence based on the tiny fraction of the world's climate we see in our immediate vicinity. Looking outside and seeing snow and -50 degree temperatures tells us nothing about global climate trends, no matter how easy it might be to lampoon Al Gore when this happens. I do hate that guy though. 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record, no matter how cold your backyard is. As conservatives, I think we need to move toward accepting that there is overwhelming evidence for global warming (or climate change, whatever we want to call it). However, we should advocate market based solutions, like big time tax cuts for American clean energy companies and people who innovate, instead of the crap and trade the libs are trying to shove down our throats! let's do what reagan did, and that is recognize environmental problems and advance free market policy to solve them! common sense people.
[[User:Moderate|Moderate]] , 18 November 2010

:I think the problem is that [[leftists]] have intertwined the term "global warming" with their evidence-lacking [[anthropogenic global warming theory]]; the two terms are incorrectly used together and many times interpreted as meaning the same thing, but they should be separate from each other. Evidence and current data prove that [[ClimateGate#Global_Warming_Facts|global warming has not occurred since 1995]], although warming periods have happened before - these temporary periods of global warming are not due to man-made changes. These are scientific findings based on data which [[Professor]] [[Phil Jones]] has admitted as fact. Global warming may have happened in the past, but there is simply no scientific data present today that suggests humans are the cause of these natural periods of [[global warming]] and [[global cooling]]. The anthropogenic global warming theory does, however, present a great opportunity for [[progressives]] to force [[big government]] policies onto the American people; although, it is my interpretation that such policies are [[unconstitutional]] because allowing the government to enforce this environmental agenda via [[cap and trade]] is not inline with the principles of [[limited government]]. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 14:04, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::However much we despise liberals and the cap and trade bill, we must also consider the actual merits of the issue. Even if global warming is false--a point I am by no means convinced of--many of the policies that would fight it are also good for the economy, such as tax cuts for clean, sustainable energy companies, including nuclear, as well as targeted tax policy to combat pollutants that we know harm the environment and our health, like smog and smoke from factories. Ending our dependence on fossil fuels should not be dismissed because of disbelief in the notion of global warming, in fact, it should be embraced by conservatives for several reasons. 1. It takes the main source of revenue away from middle-east dictators ($700 B per year according to Sen. McCain), 2. It would help America create new industries and again lead the world in manufacturing cutting edge goods, and 3. It would eliminate the cloud of awful smog sitting above my head right now! Maybe I would be able to see some stars at night for once!. Do you agree that we should pursue a renewable energy, market-based agenda regardless of whatever global warming garbage the liberals try to manufacture?[[User:Moderate|Moderate]] 17:10, 19 November 2010 (PST)

:Many centrists are now convinced of Global Frauding. Climategate showed how deep the lies really are. [[User:Teapartyman]]

::You know, it's funny. Very recently, I was on Wikipedia, and I went to the "scientific opinion on climate change" page. It was incredibly biased. it said "the scientific opinion on climate change is that the earth is unequivocally warming", and it didn't even mention anyone who didn't even mention any deniers. That's what I call biased. I wrestled with them for ages, but I couldn't get them to change it, because they were so attached to their ideas. Then, I came here, expecting to find an unbiased site. To my horror, this page is just as biased as Wikipedia, only in the opposite direction. Why is it that all of these encyclopedia's have to be so radically leftist or rightist as to be completely biased? Why can't this page be UNBIASED, and show each side equally? If people think that only showing the RADICAL conservative opinion on climate change is going to make people take this site seriously, they're definitely wrong. -Cybersaur

Regarding the claim of global warming being a hoax. The definition of hoax is a deliberate deception. The citations after the the articles claims of global warming being a hoax do not in fact support that conclusion. The emails of one scientist do not imply that tens of thousands of climate researchers are deliberately in cahoots to deceive the public. Though the science is woefully incomplete there is no evidence that the research is a hoax. I believe the article would be more credible the word hoax was deleted. Any feedback? [[User:CenterK|CenterK]] 02:04, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

OK the change has been made since there have been no objections. [[User:CenterK|CenterK]] 21:05, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

== Other planets ==

I just wanted to explain why I deleted the material that was in place on this matter and why I disagree with its reinstatement, rather than getting into an edit war.

Yes there are measurements from other planets that go back several years but that does not constitute a continuous measurement period. The temporal and spatial coverage of such measurements varies each time and is naturally very limited in this respect. Measurements taken relatively close together in time have shown stark differences that cannot simply be said to be climate change but rather are natural short time-scale variations in time and space as you would find if you compared the temperature in the Sahara and the Antarctic on different days and with each other. The data that does exist has not been sufficient for scientists to produce running averages with anything like the reliability of those used for earth. Long-term trends are built using ''these'' figures not simply single temperature measurements from irregular times and places. As such it is not possible to make any accurate claims about climate change on these planets within the past few decades based on the available data. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)

:Congrats RobertWDP, I love when you follow the rules like that, we want respectable contributors as yourself. I feel that you are knowledgeable on the climate subject. If you say the data is inconclusive (other planets) and therefore cannot be used. I am not convinced. Show me studies that solar system planets have no bearing on Earth climate models, then cite references as proof.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 22:25, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::I shall try to elaborate on points Robert has already made. We do not have ice core samples from Neptune or Pluto. We don't have fossil data from Mars or Titan. What data we do have is at best a starting point for further analysis. On Earth we have much more data, and we also have the ability to carry out almost any experiment. As Robert said, what data we do have about the climates of other planets is absolutely useless for establishing a model of any kind. It could be that Mars is undergoing a typical cycle of climate change that is unique to its environment. We don't know. It could be that Neptune is warming because more gasses than normal are collapsing to the center of the planet and releasing heat caused by the friction of the particles rubbing against each other as they fall. We don't know. Premises don't spring from nothing, so we can't make an argument out of facts that we don't have.

::It is also a bad idea to compare the climates of gas giants with rocky planets: the differences are so extreme that it is hardly worth going over.

::I'll end by saying this: If common argument is that we don't really understand the Earth's climate, then how are we to know it any better through comparison of environments that we know almost nothing about? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 00:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::I'll add that if ALL our solar system is getting warm at the same time, insufficient evidence? I believe that's the data that was presented, was at least cited. I am all for the truth in this matter. If you have a source, add it but don't delete the point that is countered.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 00:09, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::::If the entire solar system was warming at the same rate in the same instance (now) then you would have a very compelling case that human impact is far less than originally believed. However, we currently lack those facts if they in fact exist at all. Gas giants are not analogous to rocky planets; reasons for their climate change(s) is an entirely different matter for science to investigate. Also consider that the outer planets receive very little solar energy; the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality. Mars could be warming because it is unable to deflect any appreciable amount of solar energy it receives. We have an atmosphere, and a magnetic shield of sorts to mitigate the influx of solar energy, so if we could take humanity out of the equation, Earth would likely warm at a much lower rate than Mars or any other planets if just due to solar activity alone.

::::The truth is though, that we just don't know. There's no credible way to link the climates of different planets in the fashion this section does. Gaseous planets obviously can't be compared to our own, and the conditions inherent to the other planets open up so many variables that we have no hope of meaningfully comparing them to our own in the near (or even distant) future.

::::What I mean by all this is that you don't really need a cited source (though I accept where the burden appropriately lies) to realize that you can't compare apples to oranges.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 00:31, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::''"the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality"'' I am disagreeing but I don't know what I am disagreeing about. Sunlight on Pluto is insufficient for solar temperature fluctuations? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 00:51, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::Consider the distances involved: Pluto is so far away that the sun would at best appear as a very bright star if you stood on the surface and tried to find it. Granted, Pluto isn't so far away that it receives no solar energy whatsoever, but the amount (inverse square law) is so negligible that you can't ascribe significant weight to it. In fact, Pluto only warms to the point of having a minimal atmosphere after it's orbit changes by almost 3 billion miles.

:::::I don't want to run into 90/10 problems, but again I gotta ask: how can we compare Pluto to the Earth, or even Mars to the Earth when they are so different that they are barely similar?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 01:05, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::The sun is gigantic! [http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/sun_size_distance.html] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:15, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::::::And what's your point?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::The sun is everything, all encompassing, all powerful and to say comparing planets in our solar system are like comparing apples with oranges, I say hooey! The IPCC hasn't taken into account sun irradiation, solar spots, and a host of other issues. Their findings are the heart of Global Warming Politics. It has already been disproved no matter how many agree to its findings. As YECs correctly point out, you can't just throw seven apples on the floor, all at once, perfectly spaced. Yet, God aligned the planets in our system that way. God controls the destiny of Earth, not man. God tells us it is a sin to worry. Leave mother nature for God to decide. As said in 'Platoon', "We all gotta die sometime." Bot capture guy says what? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)

So are you telling me that the most extensively studied body in the sky, has somehow been omitted from all studies related to global warming despite the very necessary fact that the sun is probably the most important part of our climate (Being the driving force and all...)? I mean not to sound condescending, but the sun has been factored into every single climate model period because without the sun we don't really have a climate. The verdict? The sun is not the primary causative agent behind global warming. If the sun's output was so high that it was warming Pluto at (for the sake of argument) the same rate as Earth, we'd be dead. So the outer planets no, don't indicate anything about the climates of the inner planets unless it is understood that the outer planets (especially the gas giants) have some analogous variables as the inner planets do.

Also, please note that the IPCC is usually criticized for /understating/ global warming, but it's predictions are still "There is GW, humans activity is the cause." The more nuanced questions of "by how much..." "by what specific behavior..." have yet to be answered, no one disagrees there, but we can't answer those questions if we must continually go back and reassert that what we already know to be true is true.

Also what is perfectly spaced about the planets? Pluto went (back when it was a planet, though I still personally consider it such) from 9th farther to 8th farthest planet depending on when you looked at it. Uranus is helplessly tilted on its side. Saturn's rings are also note stable. What about any of this is perfection? If your idea of perfection is rooted in the tradition of Platonic forms, then I could see your point, but then again always assigning God as the reason why X occurred when we don't currently know only sets up God to fail in the long run when we DO figure it out. If God exists, and I assume he does, he does not exist in such a way that we can view him through a telescope.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 15:18, 5 March 2009 (EST)

:This is a typical argument, used by liberals to trick the ignorant. I don't know whether you are a trickster or one of the tricked, but it doesn't matter.

:The sun's output consists of energy and matter. The energy that heats the earth is infrared light, which is what McDonald's uses to keep the French Fries warm. The matter is called cosmic rays, but these are actually charged particles; they move slower than the speed of light.

:Variations in the '''energy output''' of the sun have little effect on the earth's climate, but variations in cosmic rays have a significant effect.

:The difference between a sincere person and a liberal liar depends on whether he'll stop saying something after he finds out that it is not true. So, I'll ask you: if someone can prove to your satisfaction that variations in solar output, i.e., [[cosmic rays]], have a greater effect on the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, will you stop saying otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:20, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

Sorry Ed but you've got this one wrong. Cosmic Rays do not come from the sun. They come from far beyond the solar system and thus are called "cosmic" rather than solar rays. They are emitted by extremely energetic phenomena such as supernovas. The suns emissions actually block cosmic rays from striking earth to some degree. The hypothesis that cosmic rays influence climate is mostly put forth by researcher Henrik Svensmark, but his conclusions have not yet been accepted by the mainstream. Perhaps in the future the link between cosmic rays and climate will be confirmed, but at this point it's more speculative [[User:CenterK|CenterK]] 02:16, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

== Media claims ==

Again, I shall bring this issue here rather than risk reverting an admin.

Jpatt, you state quite blatantly that Boykoff is biased towards global warming. I have to ask at this point (this is actually a question not an attempt at an insult in case of any apparent ambiguity) if you have read any of his research or actually know where his grants come from? If the answer is no to the latter in particular then such comments as you have added to the article would amount to libel, which it would be virtually impossible for you to defend against. I am familiar with his work and so hopefully can be of some use here. Boykoff's work is not actually so much research on the science of climate change itself. He actually studies how climate change (amongst other things) is portrayed and perceived by politicians, the public, and the media, not to mention the actual climate scientists. As such the funding for such research which generally involves looking at freely available material, mostly newspaper articles, is pretty negligible, especially when compared to actual climate studies that I assume you are referring to. Although I admit I cannot state for certain the actual source of the funding, I would be quite certain it is from a source that specifically funds media research and not actual climate studies. As such, Boykoff is actually studying issues such as possible bias regarding the issues of climate science, especially in politics and reporting and even mentions media bias on numerous occasions. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:09, 27 February 2009 (EST)
:Further, I would request that if my points above are not adequately addressed (i.e. the removal of libellous claims about an individual) then I would instead request that you simply allow me to remove all reference to the person's work rather than have it and him portrayed in such a way. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:15, 27 February 2009 (EST)
::Please note that I have now done this. There should be little argument not only due to my points above but also as I added the references in the first place. I am disappointed at te attitude that has been taken by some. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 19:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

== Quotation ==

The grammar and punctuation in the quotation from Obama in the article could be improved.

== Generally ==

The ecological movement generally has been described as a white attempt to stop non-whites'
industrialising, a middle-class attempt to stop working-class whites' industrialising,
an attempt to conjure up salaries for millions of scientists or an emotional
substitute for failed socialism.

== Not only liberals ==

Edited the section of liberal claims of consensus. There are more groupos than liberals that are claiming consensus on this issue. Moreover, that information seems old, maybe the whole article should be refreshed.

Also, took away the quotation marks from "consesus", otherwise it looks stupid.~~

No only liberals, make the claim that there is consensus. They claim that there is consensus, with other groups but that doesn't make it so. Also, it's better to have quotation marks since then we emphasize that there isn't any real consensus. Finally your spelling, could be improved.

==Hackers evidence scam ==

Working on other stuff myself, but thought this may be note worthy for an editor, though its depth and impact is yet to be ascertained:

[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html ''Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam'']

"One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO."

Also [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM ''The Dog Ate Global Warming Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?''][[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:39, 21 November 2009 (EST)

==list of New York Times articles dating back to 1855 addressing the global warming and cooling==

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

Here or on the controversy page?[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:47, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:Good question, but not an urgent one. We need to start separating the [[science]] of global warming from the [[politics]]. The "[[greenhouse effect]]" is real, but the threat of a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is overhyped, and [[politicized science]] has contaminated the educational process.

:We need to give our series of [[global warming]]-related articles an overhaul. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:55, 22 November 2009 (EST)

::This an excellent point. I haven't gone through it fully to check every source, but I did notice the source on the consensus of climatologists about anthropogenic global warming is from 1992, and the results of current polls are almost a full 180 degree change from the ones in the 1992 poll.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
:::I'll post the links and such here, so I could hopefully get an edit green-lighted. Heres an article on the survey http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm and hers the survey itself http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

== Science related sections should be placed first... ==

There's really no reason for the sections regarding the 'politics' and 'liberal claims of consensus' to come first. It seems appropriate that all of the scientific sections should come first in an article about a scientific issue.

Also, while I understand that many global warming supporters have a liberal inclination, doesn't this seem a bit biased: "'''Liberal''' claims of consensus"?[[User:JPope|JPope]] 13:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:No bias on our part. First, it is mostly liberals who claim there is a [[scientific consensus]] on whether global warming is more natural or artificial. Secord, the "claim of consensus" is entirely manufactured, contradicting all surveys actually conducted of climate scientists. Less than 1/3 of scientists polled accept any of the key ideas of the [[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:21, 6 February 2010 (EST)

==Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick==
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/ Good picture that should be public.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

==Intro==

Cut from intro:

*into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of the world by changing the ability of heat to escape the atmosphere.

*Some gases attributed with causing this effect are produced by industrial and power plants, while many others come from natural phenomena. In addition to atmospheric gas content, many other factors control the earth's temperature, which has its own pattern of heating and cooling.

*While many climate scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, some computer models designed to predict long term trends fail to predict recent short-term cooling that the Earth is experiencing. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009]</ref> Because 1998 was the year of El Nino, a natural phenomenon that occurs intermittently and causes the year in which it occurs to be anomalously hot, the relation of that year to longer trends is unclear. As temperatures have been falling since 1998, increasing doubt is being cast on the validity of global warming claims.

We need to distinguish between:
#a period of [[global warming period|rising world air temperatures]]
#a scientific theory about [[global warming theory|what causes the above]]
#what activists mean when they say things like, "Global warming is real"

The first is easy enough. It happens when air temperatures go up.

The second requires explaining all the various major theories explaining this. Liberals hate this, because this gives something for conservatives to compare with reality (see [[independent review]]).

The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)

<references/>

==Issues of independent review==

Cut from intro:

:... leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims

First off, [[peer review]] is not the same as [[independent review]]. Journal editors have a system of [[peer review]] that they use to help them decide whether or not to publish an article. However, that decision can be affected by the bias of the editor or publisher, such as choosing only to publish articles that support a given theory.

[[Independent review]], on the other hand, is not related to any specific journal or editor. It is the ongoing process whereby all the scientists in the world constantly look at each other's work. If they find errors, they say so right away - whether in private or in public. [[Science]] advances when scientists use elements of the [[scientific method]] such as ensuring that every [[hypothesis]] is [[falsifiable]] (see also [[reproducible results]]).

The entire problem with the last 10 or 20 years of "global warming" advocacy is that contrary views have been suppressed (see [[intelligent design]] and "[[Expelled]]"). An abuse of the [[peer review]] system has undermined [[independent review]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)

==Might have to lock the article again==

Someone added a clearly incorrect "fact", with attribution to a "History Encyclopedia" which turned out to be Wikipedia in disguise:

: If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6 °F during the 20th Century. [http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia

Whoever did this should not be allowed to contribute to this article any more. F = Fahrenheit, and C = Centigrade. The IPCC conclusion was for centigrade (or [[Celsius]] as non-Americans like to say). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)

:Hey, Ed....What do you think of moving this to Global Warming Conspiracy? Just an idea, in the interest of accuracy. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)

No, TK, we will always need an article on [[global warming]], because it is "real" - in the sense of occurring naturally over and over throughout history. Every [[ice age]] has been followed by an [[interglacial]] period when temperatures go back up again.

We must separate the [[independent review|independently reviewed]] science from the politically motivated distortions, which is a confusing and complicated task. Science is hard enough, but when you have 90% of the mainstream media controlled by liberal "[[advocacy journalists]]" the job is ten times as hard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:03, 6 February 2010 (EST)
:Splitting the article between complementary "Climate Change" and "Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy" articles (Or Man-caused? Anthropogenic is just too long) might help. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:08, 6 February 2010 (EST)

::I don't like the term [[climate change]], if it's nothing more than a euphemism for [[AGW]]. About 4 years ago, when I almost had the pro-AGW pov-pushers stopped at Wikipedia, they decided to change the terminology. This had the desired effect of confusing everybody and bought them more time.

::There are only two things going on here:
::#Scientific theories about what makes the earth's atmosphere get warmer and colder
::#Attempts to promote treaties and taxes, based on these theories

::We don't need a lot of different articles. "[[Global warming]]" should be the main science article - split into sub-articles for ease of writing; "[[Global warming controversy]]" should be about the political clash between the two main sides: liberals and their ilk who support [[AGW]] theory because they want the [[Kyoto Protocol]], [[carbon tax]]es, etc. & conservatives along with a few brave independent scientists who oppose the [[AGW]] because it's contradicted by the facts.

==Warmest year or decade==

Various claims have been made that this or that recent year is the "warmest" in recent memory. Then, this claim is used to argue that the [[AGW|global warming theory]] must be true. This is in the same category as claiming that there has never been a time when there was open, ice-free water at the [[North Pole]], or that the polar bear population is decreasing, or that some famous glacier or snow-capped mountain has less ice.

None of these claims - even if true - would have any bearing on whether human beings are heating up the atmosphere too much (see [[AGW|global warming theory]]). But shouldn't liberals admit their theory is nothing but hot air, if any of these claims are disproven? Of course not, the public can't concentrate on the science long enough! The liberals just quickly change the subject to another claim.

Anyway, this article would probably be a good place to rebut all these claims. Who wants to help? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 6 February 2010 (EST)

==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==

I know that many of us are skeptical about global warming and that's great, we should cover all the reasons for skepticism in this article. But many Conservatives do believe in Global Warming. I'm one of them. Newt Gingrich is another. So I don't see this as a thing where anyone who believes NASA is a liberal. I want lower taxes, I want smaller government, but I think we can lower pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil at the same time and both are good for our country. Lindsay graham said as much himself, and I think McCain did too.

I think we need to balance this article, not between libs and Conservatives, but between Conservatives who are convinced about global warming and Conservatives who aren't.[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 14:32, 11 February 2010 (EST)
:You're absolutely right that not all conservatives believe in global warming. (And I'm surprised you didn't cite Margaret Thatcher next to Gingrich!) And I don't think anybody can be against reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I believe everybody agrees: the less reliant we are on the Middle East, the better.
:But the recent ClimateGate scandal should increase your doubt somewhat, I'd hope, about global warming. More and more, evidence is coming forward which demonstrates that this has all been either an outright fraud or an extraordinary exaggeration of regular and natural climate cycles.
:Nevertheless, if you would like to propose any large-scale edits to the article, you're welcome to! Post your suggested additional section here, for review by the most senior administrators, and perhaps they will be added to the article. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:38, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Jacob, I understand why you might think that and I respect your opinion. I, personally, think that the day we put a man on the moon was about the best proof ever that this is the best country that's ever been. I love our space program, I love our science and technology, and I believe that science comes up with the best answers about things like this.

There was a scam at the institute in England and the IVPP is exaggerated, you are right. Gore is a dope, no question. But NASA has been taking thousands of satellite and weather station measurements and they say the CO2 level is going up, the earth is warming, and that it's caused by the extra CO2 we are burning. It's millions of tons of coal and oil and natural gas we burn every year. I understand about interglacial periods and so on, but even then, even if it was natural, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere would be our best option for saving our agriculture and avoiding a lot of trouble.

Even Rick Warren, the guy who wrote the book that my wife gave me that made me accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, agrees that we need to do something about it.[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 14:59, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:I agree with JacobB. I think any claims made prior to [[ClimateGate]] on Global warming should be invalid until/unless more recent, similar claims are again said by the same politicians who previously thought Global warming was caused by humans. It's one thing to agree with what the "consensus" of scientists have claimed over the last decade as possibly true, but it doesn't seem fair or right to suggest that the same people still have the same opinion of the consensus after it's found their "science" could be less than accurate. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)
::Mpauline, please! I'm also a huge supporter of the space program. So was President Bush, and now Obama's killing the budget for it! We clearly agree on many issues, and if you're conservative you'll find you have common ground with basically everybody here. When it comes to climate change, we could argue all day - but let's not! Instead, put on this talk page below the section you wish to add to the article, and people with far more authority than me will review your proposed edit, and we'll reach an outcome that we're all pleased with. You know the old saying, "You cut, I chose?" for reaching compromise? Well, first you have to cut, ie, show us your proposed edit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:07, 11 February 2010 (EST)
You got it Jacob. Thanks. I'll put something up soon. Derek, that's a fair point, but the new NASA report came out after the Climategate scandal. They were making exaggerated claims over there in England, but I believe that our American capabilities are way better. NOAA and NASA's new measurements say the oceans got hotter in the last ten years than they've ever measured.[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 15:31, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:::NASA and NOAA won't do any better, given the current administration's penchant for buying into man being the cause of climate change. The Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly, over thousands of years. That is natural, put in motion by God, and if someone believes they can do anything to change those cooling and warming periods, they are nuts. Simply put, if it is God's plan that we cease to exist, that is it. If His plan is for us to survive He will be the cause of mankind's salvation, not man. If one accepted what atheists believe to be true, I still would say man's puny attempts to change forces on a scale millions of times greater than us would be doomed to failure...if we all went off fossil fuels tomorrow, perhaps we would succeed in slowing such warming by a few years. What then? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:52, 11 February 2010 (EST)

OK, TK, I respect that, and many other Conservatives believe that. But that is not what all Conservatives believe.
Myself and many other Evangelical Christians believe that God very well might expect us to clean up our own mess. I assure you that NOAA and NASA know full well about natural cycles in the climate. They know full well that there was no ice at the poles in the Paleocene. They have taken natural cycles into account, but they say the CO2 levels and temperatures are going up much faster than they do during natural cycles, and they know this from air bubbles trapped in ice cores. JacobB above is right, President Bush supported NASA and NOAA just like Reagan did.
And, you know, I know that liberals believe in global warming, and I don't like agreeing with them, but even they can be right about one thing. I mean, Al Gore probably believes that 2+2=4, and I'm not going to say the answer is 5 just to disagree with him on every single thing.
I know I won't convince you and I'm already convinced by teh evidence I've seen. We both have good points. This article should reflect the range of opinion among Conservatives on the subject, don't you think?[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 17:12, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:You completely mistake what I believe. We do agree that presenting the facts is important, however. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)

==Past speculation==
Article is locked, but this could be included in this section: “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot..”
“Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers. . . all point to a radical change in climate conditions and . . . unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone . . . Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones . . . while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.” - Washington Post, Nov. 2, '''1922''', based upon a report from the National Weather Review. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/] [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:06, 3 March 2010 (EST)

== NASA Antarctic warming map ==

The first picture a reader sees in this article is [[Composite antarctic NASA.jpg]], a map showing Antarctica with colors indicating temperature changes. The page where the image originally was, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36736, shows a scale, in which even pale red represents a (slight) increase in temperature. The article uses the picture with a caption including the words "Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right". Just from looking at the picture, it's obvious that even the east half is mostly red.

The picture doesn't seem especially relevant to the first section of the article, anyway.

The article might be better off using another picture like [[Las-vegas-snow-storm-12-2008-christmas.jpg]]. It's a lot easier to see that picture's meaning in a quick glance, and we could still use the Antarctica picture lower in the article for another purpose.

I don't believe that man-made global warming is happening either, but this picture isn't the first one I'd choose for an article debunking the overblown claims.
[[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 19:20, 6 January 2011 (EST)

== I have not studied the global warming issue, but it is going to be a hard sell in America ==

I have not been following the man made global warming issue in recent weeks (post Climategate) and what the possibly effects could be, but I can tell you that it is going to be a hard sell in America because: America has a down economy that seems will continue to get worse plus Obama's re-election is a long shot (Republican candidates are opposed to supporting the global warming issue), Americans prefer big cars and big houses, America has a strong oil lobby, has public schools which are doing a lousy job of teaching math/science, plus Americans value personal choice more than most nations. I don't see much happening on this issue over the next 5 years in terms of any changes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Apparently we have 50 months left[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/sep/30/50-months-climate-change]. Can't see it making much difference though. And even if it did in most countries the US and China don't seem very positive. I suppose it is just time to be thankful that we don't live in Kiribati. (unless of course we do, in which case just hope we can emigrate somewhere) [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:35, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

==Beneficial effects of global warming ?==
Why is there a section about beneficial effects of global warming ? Am I the only one who find it odd ?
There is 2 options:
* The most plausible is that global warming is a huge hoax, therefore, there is absolutely no interest to speak about any possible beneficial effects
* The other option is that global warming is real. In this case, the few beneficial effects are completely shadowed by the threat of sea level rise which may threaten millions of human lives.
--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:12, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:Those are not the only 2 options. It is possible that global warming is not a hoax, but is also not [[anthropogenic global warming|anthropogenic]]. It is also possible that global warming is real, but its effects will not be nearly as devastating as liberal scientists claim. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 18:30, 10 January 2012 (EST)
::I agree that these are not the only 2 options but that does not change the point. If global warming is real but not anthropogenic, we are in my 2nd case. If global warming is not as devastating as liberal scientists claim, we are either in the 1st case (if there is not sea level rise, I think we won't notice the difference) or in the 2nd (if we notice the difference, there is a huge probability that sea level will rise).--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:43, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:::The two cases I gave are not mutually exclusive. But you probably are correct, that none of the beneficial effects mentioned in the article can occur without severe negative effects as well. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 18:53, 10 January 2012 (EST)
::::I think that having a section to talk about benefits could be useful because (I'm pretty sure) it is true about the lengthened growing season and it also seems likely that less people would die from freezing to death. However, I do agree that it is strange not to include anything about the drawbacks, because that is almost an accepted concept in our current culture; i.e. most people equate global warming with negative effects. I would like to point out that the sea level rise, even according to the liberals, won't happen until at least 100 years from now. I propose that the benefits of global warming section be merged with the Reported effects of Climate Change section, so we can keep it all together. Also, I think the entire Reported effects of Climate Change section is one of those subtle vandalism thingys, usually written by a liberal to make Conservapedia look bad. I didn't want to delete it in case someone was actually trying to be serious. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:50, 2 February 2012 (EST)

Your question sounds like a rhetorical one, i.e., an assertion that warmer weather isn't beneficial. Please write an article section on the benefits and drawback of warmer weather. For example, how does it affect crop growth or human health? Do more or fewer people die in warmer climates than in colder climates. (Why do retirees tend to move south say, from, New York or Boston to Florida? Are they knowledgeable or ignorant about the connection between warmth and longevity?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:44, 31 December 2012 (EST)

:Ed, such an article section would be quite lengthy. While retirees may well move to Florida to find a more salubrious climate, we must also take into account the vastly-increased incidence of certain diseases in tropical climates. Yellow Fever, for example, is all but unheard-of in northerly climates in this day and age, but still kills many people every year in parts of Africa and South America. This is, in large part, because the weather never grows cold enough to kill off the mosquitoes that spread the disease. Given the many factors that would need to be taken into account, I fear that such a section, properly researched, would dwarf the rest of the article. Perhaps a separate article would be more appropriate? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:57, 31 December 2012 (EST)

== Sunspot Activity ==
I want to delete the section on sunspot activity, as it is misguided and certainly wrong. The article is dated and the prediction made by the scientist, Willie Soon, that the Earth would start to cool after 2009 did not come to pass (2010 was the hottest year ever recorded). On 1/30/12, NASA released an article <ref> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/nsfc-eeb013012.php </ref> which refutes the claims made by Willie Soon. Of course, I don't want to remove it if some people still think it could be still useful unless every agrees that it should be removed.

Basically, the deal is that Dr. Soon thought sunspots contributed significantly to global temperature. Here are links to NASA's website showing average global temperature <ref> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ </ref> and sunspot activity <ref> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/ </ref>. You can see that the two do not correlate, especially in the last couple years. Strikingly, sunspot activity is at the lowest its been in about 100 years, and the global temperature is the highest its been in at least 100 years. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 17:57, 1 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>

== Facts ==

I found a good website with some facts about the GW hoax, don't know if it will pass as a good source but deserves a good look...<ref>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html</ref>User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 12:20, 31 December 2012 (EST)
{{reflist}}

== Bias ==

I put this at the top of the page under a different title, but nobody pays attention to that part:

You know, it's funny. Very recently, I was on Wikipedia, and I went to the "scientific opinion on climate change" page. It was incredibly biased. it said "the scientific opinion on climate change is that the earth is unequivocally warming", and it didn't even mention anyone who didn't even mention any deniers. That's what I call biased. I wrestled with them for ages, but I couldn't get them to change it, because they were so attached to their ideas. Then, I came here, expecting to find an unbiased site. To my horror, this page is just as biased as Wikipedia, only in the opposite direction. Why is it that all of these encyclopedia's have to be so radically leftist or rightist as to be completely biased? Why can't this page be UNBIASED, and show each side equally? If people think that only showing the RADICAL conservative opinion on climate change is going to make people take this site seriously, they're definitely wrong. -Cybersaur

PS: I am in no way trying to defend global warming ideology. I too think it is ridiculous.

==Marcott graph==

Can someone add a section on the Marcott reconstruction, including his statement that it "cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes"?

And has anyone else besides me noticed that this admission contradicts the NY Times analysis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:38, 7 April 2013 (EDT)

== Science. ==

I would just like to show you these two. I don't know about you, but these seem pretty accurate.

[http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ Here.]
[http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ And here.]

You can claim politics and yell libtard, but that wont help change those two.

Global warming

2013-08-22T01:01:04Z

CenterK: change reflected previous talk comments that aroused no objection

[[Image:NASA-1024x933.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows little warming, and many areas to the East (right) are cooling<ref>Roberts, Greg. "Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away." April 18, 2009. http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191</ref>.]]
'''Global warming''' is the theory the world is becoming dangerously warmer due to the human emission of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Liberals have used the theory of [[Global warming theory|man-made global warming]] to seek rationing by government of life-saving energy production and consumption.

'''''The most accurate data -- from satellites -- confirms that there has been virtually no global warming since 1998'''''.<ref>http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2012/12/34-years-of-satellite-temperature-data-show-global-warming-is-on-a-plateau-2475696.html</ref> The media insist otherwise by publicizing local variations in unscientific surface thermometers,<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, Jan. 12 2011, NASA]</ref> when the more scientific atmospheric temperature do not show such an increase.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/10/not-hot-ocean-sst-around-the-usa-not-anywhere-near-record-levels/ "Not so hot – ocean temperatures around the USA are not anywhere near record levels"]</ref> Moreover, natural periods of global warming and global cooling are expected to occur regardless of human activity, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.<ref>''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974</ref> [[Global cooling]], a theory that predates global warming, obviously occurs naturally many times throughout [[Earth|Earth's]] geological history.<ref>"After any given warming phase begins, thousands of years later the cyclical [[Milankovitch]] decrease in the sun's heat kicks in. The warming stops, reverses and an [[ice age]] ensues." [http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html Counterpunch], June 2007</ref> The ease of refutation of anthropogenic global cooling claims foretells the eventual fate of the current global warming hysteria.

Many political activists use the term "global warming" to refer to [[anthropogenic global warming theory]] (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing "[[greenhouse gases]]" is causing an increase in temperature and is more significant than natural causes and cycles. The AGW theory is supported by left-leaning political parties, as well as a majority of sovereign states, national agencies, and an intergovernmental panel (see [[IPCC]]). The reality is that there is no immediate global crisis, and even dire warnings by the UN's [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) admit that significant effects will not be manifested for at least 100 years. Predictions made by [[climate model]]s publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass in recent years. Many scientists, such as Hal Lewis, have decried global warming as a conspiracy for the purpose of securing trillions of dollars in grant money.

In November 2009, emails were disclosed that implicated a wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming. Prior to [[ClimateGate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. For example, in 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming "an issue we can no longer afford to ignore".<ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]</ref> In 2010, an independent analysis cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing, but the effects of the scandal still linger.<ref>Hilary Whiteman. [http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/?hpt=Sbin 'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty], ''CNN World'', July 07, 2010.</ref>

Former vice president [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world. However, it has since been revealed that he convinced many people through inaccurate information in his "documentary," i.e., he only won the Nobel Prize by lying{{Citation needed|{{2013-04-05}}}}.

==Summary of Arguments Against Anthropogenic Global Warming==
The following facts can help dissuade even the most illogical of liberals from believing in the flawed theory of anthropogenic global warming.
=== Temperature Flat ===
The overall temperature has been flat for about 16 years. <ref> [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html] </ref> .
=== Data Manipulation ===
Climate data stating otherwise has been proven to be manipulated. <ref> [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000] </ref>.
=== Alternate Causation ===
-Even if global warming did actually exist, the overall effect of human activities on global warming are minimal, if not nonexistent. <ref> [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08-30/news/ct-oped-0830-byrne-20110830_1_cosmic-rays-aerosols-magnetic-field] </ref>
==Science of Global Warming==
===Presence of CO2===

One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is a greenhouse gas - were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. Historically, Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.<ref> [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm]</ref>

The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the heating of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide. <ref> [http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html] </ref> As the temperature rises, the [[solubility]] of carbon dioxide in ocean water is reduced<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/</ref>, causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise.

It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above mentioned cyclic effect. The current concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is about 392 ppm, which is the highest it has been in at least 800,000 years.<ref>"Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html NOAA], December 2011</ref>

===The Modern Warm Period===

The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''"Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century"'' <ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168</ref>

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]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

Recent studies of the Milankovitch Cycles, which predict Earth's climate by studying changes in its orbit and axial tilt, suggest that we are currently 18,000 years into a 150,000 year period between ice ages. This would imply that we should expect the temperature to be rising anyway. A 2002 study by Berger and Loutre suggests 50,000 years of warmer weather before Earth begins to cool again, but that model incorroprated anthropogenic forces and concluded:
<blockquote>While combinations of natural forcings produce a gradual warming up to about 1960, none of them leads to a warming over the last 30 years (this period containing three major volcanic eruptions). In contrast, simulations incorporating only anthropogenic forcings reproduce the warming over the last three decades at a rate consistent with that observed, but underestimate the early 20th century warming. As a consequence, only the use of both natural and anthropogenic forcings allows to reproduce much of the observed decadal scale variations of the annual mean hemispheric temperature over the last 150 years.<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0870.2002.00287.x/full] Climate of the last millennium: a sensitivity study, May 2002</ref></blockquote>

It should be noted, however, that computer simulated climate models are often tweaked so they agree with the historical temperature record. There is no way to completely simulate all of the Earth's climate with a computer program.

===Sun Spots===
Sunspot activity is a factor in climate fluctuations, however, little details were known about how much of an impact these fluctuations had on the Earth's climate. During the deepest solar minimum ever recorded, from 2005 to 2010, NASA measured the Earth's energy balance, i.e. the amount of energy absorbed by the sun subtract the amount of energy lost to radiation into space. They concluded:
<blockquote>If the Sun were the only climate forcing or the dominant climate forcing, then the planet would gain energy during the solar maxima, but lose energy during solar minima. The fact that Earth gained energy at a rate 0.58 W/m2 during a deep prolonged solar minimum reveals that there is a strong positive forcing overwhelming the negative forcing by below-average solar irradiance. That result is not a surprise, given knowledge of other forcings, but it provides unequivocal refutation of assertions that the Sun is the dominant climate forcing. <ref>[http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/ NASA: Earth's Energy Imbalance] nasa.gov, January, 2012</ref></blockquote>
However, just because the sun isn't the dominate force, doesn't mean that it doesn't nonetheless have a significant impact upon the Earth's climate.

==Economics of Global Warming==
===Unnecessary Expansion of Government===
The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy. In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending ''Environmental Shakedown''.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html</ref>

==Public Stances on Global Warming==
===Politicization of the Issue===

Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.

Bill Gray wrote:
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.<ref> [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]</ref>

Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake "consensus"

Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.<ref> [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]</ref>

Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA & NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]</ref> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.<ref> [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]</ref> In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.<ref> [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] </ref>

The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;<ref>[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]</ref>

"We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change"

and

"...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis."

The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; <ref>[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm] {{dead link}}</ref>

"The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment."

There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, "[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence."<ref>[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]</ref>

On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated "Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk."
<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]</ref>

in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change". They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.<ref>[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]</ref>

The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security], Central Intelligence Agency, September 25, 2009.</ref>

Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.<ref>http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx</ref>

===Climate Change As A Cult===
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other attempts such as Marxism, overpopulation, ''Silent Spring'',
<blockquote>now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]], Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times).

Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.<ref>Don Feder, ''The Cult of Global Warming'', GrassTopsUSA.com 7/31/2007</ref> </blockquote>

Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming [[Ice Age]] scare of the 70's, Maurizio Morabito asked, “Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?" <ref>Maurizio Morabito, ''The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ files'', The Spectator December 5 2009</ref>

Mark Steyn writes in Macleans,
<blockquote>
"Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”</blockquote>

And while, "When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable", among these devotees of [[Gaia]],
<blockquote>Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the National Post’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series The Ascent of Man. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.<ref>Mark Steyn, ''Why climate change is hot hot hot'' Macleans, December 24, 2009</ref></blockquote>

===Politics of Global Warming and Dissent===
{{main|Politics of global warming}}

Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, "'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” <ref>[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media</ref>

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref name="cato" />

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref name="cato" />

Mark Steyn writes in "Why climate change is hot hot hot",
<blockquote>
What’s also changed since the seventies is the nature of the UN and the transnational bureaucracies...“Aid” is a discredited word these days and comes with too many strings attached. But eco-credits sluiced through an oil-for-food program on steroids offers splendid new opportunities for bulking up an ambitious dictator’s Swiss bank accounts.<ref>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/2/</ref></blockquote>

The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. <ref>[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008</ref>

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century.

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref name="cato" />

Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no "Climate Crisis" and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. <ref>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008</ref> This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer "The article has not undergone any scientific peer review" and "the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions" In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.

Ryan N. Maue:
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that global warming might be greatly overblown. <ref>[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009</ref> Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide "has completely and utterly collapsed" during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.

Dr. Vincent Gray:
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and "there is no serious threat to the climate" <ref>[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009</ref>

Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise," and "'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future." <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009</ref>

Dr. John S. Theon:
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 </ref>

Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as "an insidious propaganda campaign" peddling "patent nonsense." <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009</ref>

After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796 UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008</ref>

*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,” “But you are being told lies.”
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”

In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid", and that "We're out of time", with Al Gore calling the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&show_article=1</ref> In response, Fox News (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased", containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, "If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it", and accused Borenstein of "writing a polemic and reporting it as fact." Deming noted that "the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980." The AP responded to criticism by stating that, "It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008</ref>

Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, "There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes."

The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.<ref>http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html</ref> According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.<ref>[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]</ref>

Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says "Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating," and "...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both." <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008</ref>

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, "What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!"

===2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change===

[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.

According to his website,<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]</ref> [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more "aggressive approach" to global warming which he has declared as "undeniable and urgent." He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the "real deal on the environment".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]</ref>.

In his own words, McCain says "the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.

[[Barack Obama]] believes "that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind." During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. <ref>[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008</ref> He comments "Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions."<ref>[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org</ref>

===Evangelicals===
In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action", which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man-made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market-based CO2 reductions such as a cap-and-trade program.<ref>[http://christiansandclimate.org/]</ref> In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is misleading and/or exaggerated.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html ''Evangelicals Push Back Against Global Warming Doom'', Dec. 04 2009, christianpost.com]</ref>

==Inaccuracies of Global Warming evidence==
===Climate "Science" Fraud===
{{main|Climategate}}

The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.<ref>http://www.junkscience.com/</ref> Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, "[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science." Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref>

[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]

===Liberal claims of "Consensus"===
Reports of a scientific "consensus" among scientists are similar to their one-sided support of other [[liberal]] policies and beliefs. For example, nearly 100% of political donations from professors are to [[Democrats]] rather than Republicans. Similarly, according to NASA, 97% of climate scientists believe that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.<ref>http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus</ref> These liberal scientists believe, or say they believe, that the Earth is warming overall, and that this warming, as well as other changes in climate patterns, is largely caused by human activities.<ref>Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider. "Expert credibility in climate change." April 9, 2010. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html</ref><ref>From "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html</ref> These allegations do not necessarily make the consensus true, as discussed throughout the referenced citation. Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming. However, according to some researchers, scientists who do not support the anthropogenic global warming theory offer a general lack of comparative credentials; proponents of man-made global warming argue that this has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" supporting the theory for greater government control. Scientists skeptical of the theory question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.<ref>[http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html Pual Chesser,
''Be wary of climate policy development'', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Act. 25, 2007]</ref> It has also been documented that on most college campuses criticism of the global warming theory is silenced or censored; evidence shows that scientists skeptical of AGW are being supressed.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031</ref>

It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, "Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." <ref>[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute</ref> In fact, many scientists disagree with the "facts," their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.

[[File:ad.jpg|center]]

===Past Speculation===

Speculation and warnings of catastrophic climate change are not unprecedented. In 2001 the ''Guardian'' noted that some 70s headlines shouted, "Brace yourself for another ice age". In 1971 the journal ''Science'' reported that the subsequent cooling effect resulting from a possible eightfold increased from atmospheric aerosol concentrations, "if sustained over a period of several years - is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." <ref>Reported by Alison George in ''Breaking the ice'', The Guardian, Thursday 28 June 2001</ref>

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992 on the doubtfulness of man-caused warming on Earth.

{{Cquote|Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref name="cato">http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>}}

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.

By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. <ref>[http://www.petitionproject.org/</ref>

[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]

In June, 1974, ''[[Time]]'' magazine published its front page article, ''Science: Another Ice Age?'',<ref>''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974</ref> while a report by the [[CIA]] in the same year stated that, "The world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change”, noting such things as that the "world's snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent", and "the Canadian area of [[Arctic]] Greenland suffered below normal temperatures for 19 consecutive months", which was unique during the last 100 years. A "major climatic shift" was speculated, which would threaten the "the stability of most nations.” It further warned that "Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada" to "major areas in northern China will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow", within the next 2500 years - or sooner.<ref>[http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ''A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems'', August 1974]</ref>

Also in 1974, Nigel Calder, former editor of ''New Scientist'' and atmospheric researcher wrote in his book ''The Weather Machine'', "One might argue that there is a virtual certainty of the next ice age starting some time in the next 2000 years. Then the odds are only about 20-to-1 against it beginning in the next 100 years."

In 1975 the liberal magazine ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported that "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend,...but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." These authorities were skeptical that political leaders would take any positive action to compensate for the [[climate change]], and they conceded that the more dramatic solutions, such as melting the arctic ice cap, might create worse problems than that which they were designed to solve.<ref>http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf</ref>

===Natural Variability of the Climate System===
It is virtually universally accepted amongst secular climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

===Natural Climate Change on Other Planets===

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming. Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth. There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.

Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth.

However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.

===Al Gore's Claims===
[[File:Gore GlobalWarming.jpg|right|200px]]
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was "broadly accurate", it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker; ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']</ref><ref>Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''</ref>

Taken from the official transcript,<ref>[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]</ref> the nine errors the judge found were:

*1. Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

*2. Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

*3. Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

*7. Hurricane Katrina. In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.

*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adapt or climatize, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes, argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such film to their pupils, then this would inevitably result "in the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school, which is thus not only not being forbidden by the local education authority (and the DES), but being positively facilitated by them."

Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.

Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”<ref> BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007</ref>

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that

*1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

*3. Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.<ref>http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html</ref>

Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.<ref>[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]</ref>

Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,

:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, in order to make a position seem more solid than it is.

===Scientists===

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

====Hal Lewis====
[[Liberal]] claims of global warming led to the resignation in October 2010 by Professor Hal Lewis from The American Physical Society because of "the [[global warming]] scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. '''It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist'''."<ref>http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html</ref>

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey_Stick_Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


==Effects of Global Warming==
===Beneficial effects of Global Warming===
[[File:Autumn foliage.jpg|thumb|Canoing on a Colorful Day, (NY).]]
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. <ref>[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]</ref>

Another source notes,

In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs, while areas that already have hot climates will see no increase. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy as cooling is much more energy efficient. With the changes brought about by global warming more land that is not lost to desert and/or rising sea levels would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/</ref>

===Reported effects of Climate Change===

Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,

*Global cooling.<ref>http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling</ref>

* Decreased food production.<ref> Fred Pearce, ''Climate change warning over food production,'' Newscientist.com, April 26, 2005</ref>

* Increased food production. <ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html] William Booth, ''Global Heating Could Benefit U.S. Farmers; Prices Seen Rising As Production Falls'' The Washington Post, May 17, 1990</ref>

* Shrinking forests.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print David Adam, ''Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change''] March 11, 2009, guardian.co.uk</ref>

* Increased tree foliage.<ref>http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734</ref>

* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'<ref>'Global Warming May Spur Increased Growth In Pacific Northwest'' Oct. 20, 2009, Forests Science Daily</ref>

* Melting glaciers.<ref>Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt,''
June 6, 2007, The Hindustan Times</ref>

* Growing glaciers.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51</ref>

* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.<ref>http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/</ref>

* Colder winters <ref>''Climate change could bring colder winters,'' March 13, 2003, Canadian Broadcasting Centre</ref>

* A new ice age.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research/print Bill McGuire, The Guardian, November 13, 2003]</ref>

* Prevention of an ice age.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html Andrea Thompson, ''Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age''], Monday, September 10, 2007</ref>

* Taller mountains.<ref>Ker Than, ''Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming, Too'', August 4, 2006, LiveScience</ref>

* A lop-sided planet.<ref>Robert Roy Britt, June 29,2005 LiveScience.com</ref>

* Stronger hurricanes.<ref>''Global Warming: Warmer Seas Linked To Strengthening Hurricanes,'' Sep. 4, 2008, ScienceDaily</ref>

* Weaker Hurricanes.<ref>Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer, ''Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity'', 04-17-2007, USA Today</ref>

* Shorter days.<ref>[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/11220/1066/ William Atkins, ''Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days''], ITWire, April 11, 2007</ref>

* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.<ref>Richard Fisher, ''Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes,'' September 23 2009 Newscientist.com</ref>

* Shrinking brains.<ref>Gordon G. Gallup Jr., Human Nature (Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2007U)</ref>

* Shrinking sheep.<ref> Steve Connor, Science Editor, ''How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep,''
Independent.co.uk, 3 July 2009</ref>

* Tiger Attacks.<ref>''Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks'', Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>

* Shark attacks.<ref>[http://www.junkscience.com/news3/shark.htmlBruce Johnston, ''Shark attack on boat result of global warming''] Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>

* Walrus stampede deaths.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts ''Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths'', Associated Press - December 14, 2007</ref>

* Imminent cannibalism.<ref>Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show</ref>

* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.<ref>http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth</ref>

* A strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]]<ref>Daniel Tarantola, University of NSW, Australia</ref> <ref>http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608</ref>

* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html?view=print ''Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa,''] Stanford Report, November 23, 2009</ref>

* Child ''climate cops''.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70811</ref>

*Increase in depression.<ref>Emily Sohn Thurs., Discovery Channel, Dec . 10, 2009</ref>

* Increase in psychiatric illness.<ref>World Health Organisation</ref> <ref>''Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'' 04-08, 2008, Sify.com</ref>

* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.<ref>Alan Jones, The Scotsman, February 22, 2007</ref>

{{liberalism}}
{{Climategate scandal}}

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

== See Also ==
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html "CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming"]
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Man made disasters]]

Global warming

2013-08-22T00:55:47Z

CenterK:

[[Image:NASA-1024x933.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows little warming, and many areas to the East (right) are cooling<ref>Roberts, Greg. "Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away." April 18, 2009. http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191</ref>.]]
The '''global warming''' theory is the [[liberal]] hoax<ref>Cringing Over Climategate [http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/01/climategate-scandal-science-obama-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html Forbes], 12/2/2009</ref><ref>Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ Forbes], 11/23/2011</ref> that the world is becoming dangerously warmer due to the human pollution of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Liberals have used the theory of [[Global warming theory|man-made global warming]] to seek rationing by government of life-saving energy production and consumption.

'''''The most accurate data -- from satellites -- confirms that there has been virtually no global warming since 1998'''''.<ref>http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2012/12/34-years-of-satellite-temperature-data-show-global-warming-is-on-a-plateau-2475696.html</ref> The media insist otherwise by publicizing local variations in unscientific surface thermometers,<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, Jan. 12 2011, NASA]</ref> when the more scientific atmospheric temperature do not show such an increase.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/10/not-hot-ocean-sst-around-the-usa-not-anywhere-near-record-levels/ "Not so hot – ocean temperatures around the USA are not anywhere near record levels"]</ref> Moreover, natural periods of global warming and global cooling are expected to occur regardless of human activity, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.<ref>''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974</ref> [[Global cooling]], a theory that predates global warming, obviously occurs naturally many times throughout [[Earth|Earth's]] geological history.<ref>"After any given warming phase begins, thousands of years later the cyclical [[Milankovitch]] decrease in the sun's heat kicks in. The warming stops, reverses and an [[ice age]] ensues." [http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html Counterpunch], June 2007</ref> The ease of refutation of anthropogenic global cooling claims foretells the eventual fate of the current global warming hysteria.

Many political activists use the term "global warming" to refer to [[anthropogenic global warming theory]] (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing "[[greenhouse gases]]" is causing an increase in temperature and is more significant than natural causes and cycles. The AGW theory is supported by left-leaning political parties, as well as a majority of sovereign states, national agencies, and an intergovernmental panel (see [[IPCC]]). The reality is that there is no immediate global crisis, and even dire warnings by the UN's [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) admit that significant effects will not be manifested for at least 100 years. Predictions made by [[climate model]]s publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass in recent years. Many scientists, such as Hal Lewis, have decried global warming as a conspiracy for the purpose of securing trillions of dollars in grant money.

In November 2009, emails were disclosed that implicated a wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming. Prior to [[ClimateGate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. For example, in 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming "an issue we can no longer afford to ignore".<ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]</ref> In 2010, an independent analysis cleared the scientists involved of any wrongdoing, but the effects of the scandal still linger.<ref>Hilary Whiteman. [http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/07/climategate.email.review/?hpt=Sbin 'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty], ''CNN World'', July 07, 2010.</ref>

Former vice president [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world. However, it has since been revealed that he convinced many people through inaccurate information in his "documentary," i.e., he only won the Nobel Prize by lying{{Citation needed|{{2013-04-05}}}}.

==Summary of Arguments Against Anthropogenic Global Warming==
The following facts can help dissuade even the most illogical of liberals from believing in the flawed theory of anthropogenic global warming.
=== Temperature Flat ===
The overall temperature has been flat for about 16 years. <ref> [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html] </ref> .
=== Data Manipulation ===
Climate data stating otherwise has been proven to be manipulated. <ref> [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000] </ref>.
=== Alternate Causation ===
-Even if global warming did actually exist, the overall effect of human activities on global warming are minimal, if not nonexistent. <ref> [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08-30/news/ct-oped-0830-byrne-20110830_1_cosmic-rays-aerosols-magnetic-field] </ref>
==Science of Global Warming==
===Presence of CO2===

One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is a greenhouse gas - were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. Historically, Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.<ref> [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm]</ref>

The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the heating of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide. <ref> [http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html] </ref> As the temperature rises, the [[solubility]] of carbon dioxide in ocean water is reduced<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/</ref>, causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise.

It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above mentioned cyclic effect. The current concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is about 392 ppm, which is the highest it has been in at least 800,000 years.<ref>"Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html NOAA], December 2011</ref>

===The Modern Warm Period===

The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''"Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century"'' <ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168</ref>

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]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

Recent studies of the Milankovitch Cycles, which predict Earth's climate by studying changes in its orbit and axial tilt, suggest that we are currently 18,000 years into a 150,000 year period between ice ages. This would imply that we should expect the temperature to be rising anyway. A 2002 study by Berger and Loutre suggests 50,000 years of warmer weather before Earth begins to cool again, but that model incorroprated anthropogenic forces and concluded:
<blockquote>While combinations of natural forcings produce a gradual warming up to about 1960, none of them leads to a warming over the last 30 years (this period containing three major volcanic eruptions). In contrast, simulations incorporating only anthropogenic forcings reproduce the warming over the last three decades at a rate consistent with that observed, but underestimate the early 20th century warming. As a consequence, only the use of both natural and anthropogenic forcings allows to reproduce much of the observed decadal scale variations of the annual mean hemispheric temperature over the last 150 years.<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0870.2002.00287.x/full] Climate of the last millennium: a sensitivity study, May 2002</ref></blockquote>

It should be noted, however, that computer simulated climate models are often tweaked so they agree with the historical temperature record. There is no way to completely simulate all of the Earth's climate with a computer program.

===Sun Spots===
Sunspot activity is a factor in climate fluctuations, however, little details were known about how much of an impact these fluctuations had on the Earth's climate. During the deepest solar minimum ever recorded, from 2005 to 2010, NASA measured the Earth's energy balance, i.e. the amount of energy absorbed by the sun subtract the amount of energy lost to radiation into space. They concluded:
<blockquote>If the Sun were the only climate forcing or the dominant climate forcing, then the planet would gain energy during the solar maxima, but lose energy during solar minima. The fact that Earth gained energy at a rate 0.58 W/m2 during a deep prolonged solar minimum reveals that there is a strong positive forcing overwhelming the negative forcing by below-average solar irradiance. That result is not a surprise, given knowledge of other forcings, but it provides unequivocal refutation of assertions that the Sun is the dominant climate forcing. <ref>[http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/ NASA: Earth's Energy Imbalance] nasa.gov, January, 2012</ref></blockquote>
However, just because the sun isn't the dominate force, doesn't mean that it doesn't nonetheless have a significant impact upon the Earth's climate.

==Economics of Global Warming==
===Unnecessary Expansion of Government===
The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy. In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending ''Environmental Shakedown''.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html</ref>

==Public Stances on Global Warming==
===Politicization of the Issue===

Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.

Bill Gray wrote:
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.<ref> [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]</ref>

Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake "consensus"

Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.<ref> [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]</ref>

Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA & NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]</ref> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.<ref> [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]</ref> In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.<ref> [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] </ref>

The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;<ref>[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]</ref>

"We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change"

and

"...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis."

The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; <ref>[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm] {{dead link}}</ref>

"The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment."

There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, "[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence."<ref>[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]</ref>

On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated "Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk."
<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]</ref>

in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change". They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.<ref>[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]</ref>

The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security], Central Intelligence Agency, September 25, 2009.</ref>

Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.<ref>http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx</ref>

===Climate Change As A Cult===
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other attempts such as Marxism, overpopulation, ''Silent Spring'',
<blockquote>now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]], Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times).

Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.<ref>Don Feder, ''The Cult of Global Warming'', GrassTopsUSA.com 7/31/2007</ref> </blockquote>

Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming [[Ice Age]] scare of the 70's, Maurizio Morabito asked, “Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?" <ref>Maurizio Morabito, ''The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ files'', The Spectator December 5 2009</ref>

Mark Steyn writes in Macleans,
<blockquote>
"Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”</blockquote>

And while, "When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable", among these devotees of [[Gaia]],
<blockquote>Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the National Post’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series The Ascent of Man. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.<ref>Mark Steyn, ''Why climate change is hot hot hot'' Macleans, December 24, 2009</ref></blockquote>

===Politics of Global Warming and Dissent===
{{main|Politics of global warming}}

Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, "'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” <ref>[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media</ref>

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref name="cato" />

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref name="cato" />

Mark Steyn writes in "Why climate change is hot hot hot",
<blockquote>
What’s also changed since the seventies is the nature of the UN and the transnational bureaucracies...“Aid” is a discredited word these days and comes with too many strings attached. But eco-credits sluiced through an oil-for-food program on steroids offers splendid new opportunities for bulking up an ambitious dictator’s Swiss bank accounts.<ref>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/2/</ref></blockquote>

The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. <ref>[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008</ref>

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century.

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref name="cato" />

Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no "Climate Crisis" and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. <ref>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008</ref> This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer "The article has not undergone any scientific peer review" and "the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions" In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.

Ryan N. Maue:
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that global warming might be greatly overblown. <ref>[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009</ref> Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide "has completely and utterly collapsed" during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.

Dr. Vincent Gray:
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and "there is no serious threat to the climate" <ref>[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009</ref>

Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise," and "'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future." <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009</ref>

Dr. John S. Theon:
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 </ref>

Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as "an insidious propaganda campaign" peddling "patent nonsense." <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009</ref>

After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796 UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008</ref>

*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,” “But you are being told lies.”
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”

In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid", and that "We're out of time", with Al Gore calling the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&show_article=1</ref> In response, Fox News (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased", containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, "If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it", and accused Borenstein of "writing a polemic and reporting it as fact." Deming noted that "the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980." The AP responded to criticism by stating that, "It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008</ref>

Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, "There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes."

The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.<ref>http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html</ref> According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.<ref>[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]</ref>

Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says "Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating," and "...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both." <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008</ref>

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, "What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!"

===2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change===

[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.

According to his website,<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]</ref> [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more "aggressive approach" to global warming which he has declared as "undeniable and urgent." He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the "real deal on the environment".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]</ref>.

In his own words, McCain says "the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.

[[Barack Obama]] believes "that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind." During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. <ref>[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008</ref> He comments "Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions."<ref>[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org</ref>

===Evangelicals===
In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action", which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man-made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market-based CO2 reductions such as a cap-and-trade program.<ref>[http://christiansandclimate.org/]</ref> In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is misleading and/or exaggerated.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html ''Evangelicals Push Back Against Global Warming Doom'', Dec. 04 2009, christianpost.com]</ref>

==Inaccuracies of Global Warming evidence==
===Climate "Science" Fraud===
{{main|Climategate}}

The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.<ref>http://www.junkscience.com/</ref> Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, "[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science." Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref>

[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]

===Liberal claims of "Consensus"===
Reports of a scientific "consensus" among scientists are similar to their one-sided support of other [[liberal]] policies and beliefs. For example, nearly 100% of political donations from professors are to [[Democrats]] rather than Republicans. Similarly, according to NASA, 97% of climate scientists believe that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.<ref>http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus</ref> These liberal scientists believe, or say they believe, that the Earth is warming overall, and that this warming, as well as other changes in climate patterns, is largely caused by human activities.<ref>Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider. "Expert credibility in climate change." April 9, 2010. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html</ref><ref>From "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html</ref> These allegations do not necessarily make the consensus true, as discussed throughout the referenced citation. Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming. However, according to some researchers, scientists who do not support the anthropogenic global warming theory offer a general lack of comparative credentials; proponents of man-made global warming argue that this has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" supporting the theory for greater government control. Scientists skeptical of the theory question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.<ref>[http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html Pual Chesser,
''Be wary of climate policy development'', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Act. 25, 2007]</ref> It has also been documented that on most college campuses criticism of the global warming theory is silenced or censored; evidence shows that scientists skeptical of AGW are being supressed.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031</ref>

It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, "Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." <ref>[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute</ref> In fact, many scientists disagree with the "facts," their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.

[[File:ad.jpg|center]]

===Past Speculation===

Speculation and warnings of catastrophic climate change are not unprecedented. In 2001 the ''Guardian'' noted that some 70s headlines shouted, "Brace yourself for another ice age". In 1971 the journal ''Science'' reported that the subsequent cooling effect resulting from a possible eightfold increased from atmospheric aerosol concentrations, "if sustained over a period of several years - is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." <ref>Reported by Alison George in ''Breaking the ice'', The Guardian, Thursday 28 June 2001</ref>

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992 on the doubtfulness of man-caused warming on Earth.

{{Cquote|Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref name="cato">http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>}}

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.

By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. <ref>[http://www.petitionproject.org/</ref>

[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]

In June, 1974, ''[[Time]]'' magazine published its front page article, ''Science: Another Ice Age?'',<ref>''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974</ref> while a report by the [[CIA]] in the same year stated that, "The world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change”, noting such things as that the "world's snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent", and "the Canadian area of [[Arctic]] Greenland suffered below normal temperatures for 19 consecutive months", which was unique during the last 100 years. A "major climatic shift" was speculated, which would threaten the "the stability of most nations.” It further warned that "Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada" to "major areas in northern China will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow", within the next 2500 years - or sooner.<ref>[http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ''A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems'', August 1974]</ref>

Also in 1974, Nigel Calder, former editor of ''New Scientist'' and atmospheric researcher wrote in his book ''The Weather Machine'', "One might argue that there is a virtual certainty of the next ice age starting some time in the next 2000 years. Then the odds are only about 20-to-1 against it beginning in the next 100 years."

In 1975 the liberal magazine ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported that "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend,...but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." These authorities were skeptical that political leaders would take any positive action to compensate for the [[climate change]], and they conceded that the more dramatic solutions, such as melting the arctic ice cap, might create worse problems than that which they were designed to solve.<ref>http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf</ref>

===Natural Variability of the Climate System===
It is virtually universally accepted amongst secular climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

===Natural Climate Change on Other Planets===

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming. Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth. There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.

Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth.

However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.

===Al Gore's Claims===
[[File:Gore GlobalWarming.jpg|right|200px]]
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was "broadly accurate", it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker; ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']</ref><ref>Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''</ref>

Taken from the official transcript,<ref>[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]</ref> the nine errors the judge found were:

*1. Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

*2. Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

*3. Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

*7. Hurricane Katrina. In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.

*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adapt or climatize, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes, argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such film to their pupils, then this would inevitably result "in the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school, which is thus not only not being forbidden by the local education authority (and the DES), but being positively facilitated by them."

Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.

Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”<ref> BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007</ref>

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that

*1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

*3. Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.<ref>http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html</ref>

Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.<ref>[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]</ref>

Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,

:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, in order to make a position seem more solid than it is.

===Scientists===

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

====Hal Lewis====
[[Liberal]] claims of global warming led to the resignation in October 2010 by Professor Hal Lewis from The American Physical Society because of "the [[global warming]] scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. '''It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist'''."<ref>http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html</ref>

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey_Stick_Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


==Effects of Global Warming==
===Beneficial effects of Global Warming===
[[File:Autumn foliage.jpg|thumb|Canoing on a Colorful Day, (NY).]]
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. <ref>[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]</ref>

Another source notes,

In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs, while areas that already have hot climates will see no increase. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy as cooling is much more energy efficient. With the changes brought about by global warming more land that is not lost to desert and/or rising sea levels would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/</ref>

===Reported effects of Climate Change===

Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,

*Global cooling.<ref>http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling</ref>

* Decreased food production.<ref> Fred Pearce, ''Climate change warning over food production,'' Newscientist.com, April 26, 2005</ref>

* Increased food production. <ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html] William Booth, ''Global Heating Could Benefit U.S. Farmers; Prices Seen Rising As Production Falls'' The Washington Post, May 17, 1990</ref>

* Shrinking forests.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print David Adam, ''Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change''] March 11, 2009, guardian.co.uk</ref>

* Increased tree foliage.<ref>http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734</ref>

* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'<ref>'Global Warming May Spur Increased Growth In Pacific Northwest'' Oct. 20, 2009, Forests Science Daily</ref>

* Melting glaciers.<ref>Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt,''
June 6, 2007, The Hindustan Times</ref>

* Growing glaciers.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51</ref>

* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.<ref>http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/</ref>

* Colder winters <ref>''Climate change could bring colder winters,'' March 13, 2003, Canadian Broadcasting Centre</ref>

* A new ice age.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research/print Bill McGuire, The Guardian, November 13, 2003]</ref>

* Prevention of an ice age.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html Andrea Thompson, ''Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age''], Monday, September 10, 2007</ref>

* Taller mountains.<ref>Ker Than, ''Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming, Too'', August 4, 2006, LiveScience</ref>

* A lop-sided planet.<ref>Robert Roy Britt, June 29,2005 LiveScience.com</ref>

* Stronger hurricanes.<ref>''Global Warming: Warmer Seas Linked To Strengthening Hurricanes,'' Sep. 4, 2008, ScienceDaily</ref>

* Weaker Hurricanes.<ref>Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer, ''Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity'', 04-17-2007, USA Today</ref>

* Shorter days.<ref>[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/11220/1066/ William Atkins, ''Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days''], ITWire, April 11, 2007</ref>

* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.<ref>Richard Fisher, ''Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes,'' September 23 2009 Newscientist.com</ref>

* Shrinking brains.<ref>Gordon G. Gallup Jr., Human Nature (Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2007U)</ref>

* Shrinking sheep.<ref> Steve Connor, Science Editor, ''How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep,''
Independent.co.uk, 3 July 2009</ref>

* Tiger Attacks.<ref>''Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks'', Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>

* Shark attacks.<ref>[http://www.junkscience.com/news3/shark.htmlBruce Johnston, ''Shark attack on boat result of global warming''] Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>

* Walrus stampede deaths.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts ''Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths'', Associated Press - December 14, 2007</ref>

* Imminent cannibalism.<ref>Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show</ref>

* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.<ref>http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth</ref>

* A strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]]<ref>Daniel Tarantola, University of NSW, Australia</ref> <ref>http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608</ref>

* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html?view=print ''Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa,''] Stanford Report, November 23, 2009</ref>

* Child ''climate cops''.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70811</ref>

*Increase in depression.<ref>Emily Sohn Thurs., Discovery Channel, Dec . 10, 2009</ref>

* Increase in psychiatric illness.<ref>World Health Organisation</ref> <ref>''Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'' 04-08, 2008, Sify.com</ref>

* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.<ref>Alan Jones, The Scotsman, February 22, 2007</ref>

{{liberalism}}
{{Climategate scandal}}

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

== See Also ==
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html "CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming"]
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Man made disasters]]

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2013-07-04T02:43:52Z

CenterK: /* Improvement Proposals */ Luther mentally ill?

[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1]]

==Improvement Proposals==
*'''''Due to vandalism, please post ''MAJOR'' improvement proposals here, in this section. '''''

----

I know you are keen to point out other things, but could the summary maybe mention that he was also ultimately responsible as the commander of the German army for a large number of war crimes, including the execution of POWs, the leveling of civilian cities and the extermination squads killing whole civilian villages. Could we mention that his main philosophy was that enemies of the German people do not possess any rights, which even applied to citizens of Germany. And he did not only use "threat, intimidation, and outright violence" but he had brilliant polemic propaganda. He was, in the beginning elected in a democratic election. He was grossly misunderstanding and abusing scientific theories (Evolution theory may be the most known one which he perverted, but there are other branches of science as well, like medicine).

I suggest a summary like this: After gaining power trough polemics and tactics in politics, he systematically undermined the constitution and the civil rights. With his power growing he used increasingly violence and threats. His philosophy was governed by the hate toward enemies of the German people, which he defined by race, religious or political attitude. He was an antisemitist, and explicitely hated Jews. He was responsible for the killings of millions in concentration camps and for war crimes like the use of chemical weapons, execution of POWs, use of extermination squads in conquered regions, and sieges against civilian cities. He defined the term "racial hygiene" in a perversion of science under which marriages between German and non Germans or German Jews had been restricted and which he used to justify killings of disabled and other people (the largest group being the Jews).

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 00:31, 15 February 2009 (EST)

"Who And What He Was" needs to be edited severly. You don't make a article with just a quote and a sentence. Move the quote to a "quote section" and add actual nonquoted words to the section
--[[User:Albertzhou|Albertzhou]] 12:42 12 April 2012 (EST)

The introductory paragraphs make refense to Martin Luther being "severely mentally ill" towards the end of his life. I can find no reference to Luther being mentally ill besides suffering from intermittent bouts of depression throughout his life. I would like to delete the reference. Any feedback? [[User:CenterK|CenterK]] 22:43, 3 July 2013 (EDT)

== Path to power ==

I see that the Hayek quote got back. So, the paragraph now explains in detail, but briefly, what van Papen did, what Hitler did, what Hindenburg did, all referring to actual events.

Then the article quotes Hayek out of context, and unrelated to the rest, to the effect that its is all just the socialists fault. I guess this means Conservapedia thinks that good ordinary Germans are and cannot not be blamed for what happened in the Third Reich. Is this true? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 8:40 (AEST)

:It will be integrated. Hayek is the historical narrator here. Here's more regarding Roosevelt:

:::Whatever you do don't integrate it there. It is ruining the article. All paragraphs of the article except for the introduction contain historical facts and no significant interpretion. The paragraphs, The Beginning Of His Political Life, Beer Hall Putsch, Path to Power, Consolidation of Power, Holocaust, 1944 Assassination Attempt, Marriage, and Death all are fairly factual, and the Hayek quote is the only part of it offering a interpretation. If you want to discuss Hayek's contribution to the discussion on the causes of the Third Reich, do it somewhere else, but not in the factual account. Make an article, introduce a section at the end, whatever. And then, citing Hayek as only scholar with an opinion on this issue is also insufficient. Numerous history wars were fought about this one. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:30

== "Socialist" and his rise to power ==
This article is extremely historically incorrect. I'm a history professor (proud conservative, don't worry) and I really don't like the terms used here. First of all, he was not a socialist. The word socialist was put into the party name in order to rally workers to vote for the party. Hitler himself did that when he took control of the party in 1923. He was a fascist, plain and simple. Hypernationalism, racialism, etc. There was some state control of the economy, but for the most part, people owned private property, businesses ran by themselves, etc. He is not a socialist.

Regarding his rise to power, he did not do all of the tactics mentioned in the beginning of the article. He first attempted a bloody coup, which failed, then he turned to legal means. His party legally attained a plurality in parliament, and Hitler himself ran against von Hindenburg in 1932 for President, but lost. Once his party had a plurality, he was appointed chancellor. This was all legal and peaceful.

Other than that, the article is fine, and well written.

[[User:Jimmypeg|Jimmypeg]] 19:28, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks for editing here professor! Read this article on Hitler/ socialism/ unions and tell me if correction to the page are needed. [http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/03/03/senator-sherrod-brown-d-oh-meets-hitler/]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:36, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

::"The system he (FDR) blundered us into is more like the managed and bureaucratized, state supported system of Germany before World War I than our own traditional order. Before his regime we lived in a system which depended for its expansion upon private investment in private enterprise. Today we live in a system which depends for its expansion and vitality upon the government. This is a prewar European importation imported at the moment when it had fallen into complete disintegration in Europe. ...Americans trapped in the economic disasters and the political quarrels of every nation on earth and a system of permanent militarism closely resembling that we beheld with horror in Europe for decades, bureaucrats swarming over every field of life and the President calling for more power, more pricefixing, more regulations and more billions. Does this look like the traditional American scene? Or does it not look rather like the system built by Bismarck in Germany in the last century and imitated by all the lesser Bismarcks in Europe? ...No, Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."

:Actually, we already had this discussion, how the ''real'' anti-Semites & racists came from the former territorries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. [[Franz Leopold Neumann]] of the Frankfurt School of [[critical thinking]] and Chief Nurmberg Prosecution Researcher said it clearly, and most would agree (exept brainwashed Americans who believed wartime Hollywood propaganda and still do), and that is, Germany was the last place in Europe that anyone ever expect the Holocaust to take place. And that is because nowhere in Europe had Jews been accepted and made as much social progress as in Germany. The real fact is, it is Germany's lack of development as a Democracy that would respect everybody's rights including minorities, and the lack of citizen participation and involvement, and not racism, is how a foreigner like Hitler could get in power, import his racist ideas from Austro-Hungary which were not commonly held in Imperial or Wiemar Germany, and carry out the program he did.

:And as Hayek points out, it is the Socialist who snuffed out any feelings for, or movement toward, a liberal democracy ''prior to WWI''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

First, what has FDR to with this discussion? Other than Germany wasn't the only country with a planned economy during WWII.

Second, the Emperor and his political allies weren't to fond about liberal democracy either.

Third, we had the discussion that they were all Austrians, and is was already debunked, because many of the main centers of Nazi support were in the Lutheran North of Germany.

Fourth, don't hide all the time behind Hayek. His work is definitely interesting, especially because he was neither conservative nor socialist, but states in his work "Why I am not a conservative", that he is an (old-school) liberal, which exists in a different political dimension. Anyway, whatever Hayek might have said, the question is what you think about the matter. Hayek isn't a Conservapedia editor, you are, and you took his sentence out of context, and put it there. So, what is you opinion on this matter?

Finally, do you say that the Third Reich was Austrian Catholic Socialist venture, and the Germans had no part in it?

And as an aside, I'd like to ask you if you are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:26
:So the fact Hayek stated he was not a conservative still does not place fascism at the polar end as an opposite of Communism and Socialism. We are writing historical narrative. We are using primary source, eyewitness accounts of educated and objective observers, not wartime propagandists. A lie that was told in 1933 or 1943, whether it was told by [[Josef Goebbels]], the US [[Office of War Information]], the Hollywood [[Screen Writers Guild]] or [[Franklin Roosevelt]] is as much a lie today as it was in 1933 or 1943. I'm sorry, I make no appologies for this. Facts are facts. We need to explain to the youth of the planet (a) what happened, and (b) ''why'' it happened. Sourcing, and the ''credibility'' of sourcing is paramount. Simply because a myth has been handed down by popular culture or proven liars means nothing. In fact, we have every obligation to correct the record. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:41, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with this matter?

* I am not sure to which lie you refer? Can you be precise? Do you mean to say that it is a lie that a broad section of German society was bearing responsibility for the Third Reich, and not just a group of Austrian catholic crypto-socialists? Can you answer this please?

* I never said that because Nazism wasn't socialist, it must have been conservative. To the contrary. And I didn't say that Socialism was the anti-thesis of Nazism. And therefore good. I repeatedly said that it was neither socialist, nor conservative, and that communism and Nazism were both totalitarian. I said it repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. So don't make stuff up. But just because they were both totalitarian doesn't mean that they are the same.

* The article was factual, until you added the Hayek quote giving an interpretation by Hayek. What you report isn't an eyewitness account, but the interpretation of a contemporary. I agree that should tell the youth first what happened. And that is exactly why the Hayek quote is at it a wrong place, because it not describing a factual event, it is interpretation. Feel free to add a section on the "history wars" that discussed the causes of the Third Reich. However, I see no need to single out Hayek as only scholar who had something to contribute to the discussion. Other scholars were contemporaries too, and have made equally credible contributions.

* And finally, I am still curious if are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 13:36

#FDR & Hitler articles are part of the WWII series.
#We're actually not that far off on the [[political spectrum theory]] aspects of National Socialism; the tradional telling is Communism & Fascism are polar opposites. This isn't what happened. Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with which parts of the German society bears responsibility?

* Nazism wasn't anti-god. Sure, Hitler wasn't what you would a good Christian, and he was anti-clerical when it interfered with his business, but he was a theist, and Nazism as ideology was in favor of "positive Christianity". Unlike its socialist roots, this principle has never been been amended. Before you get all excited, I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach. I don't not say that all Christians are Nazis, but just that Nazism wasn't anti-God.

* I never said that they are polar opposites, and the article didn't say it either. But just because they are not polar opposites, doesn't means that they are the same. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 15:00

::One of the very important aspects of National Socialism is, Nazi's were enlightend Socialists who got thier enlgihtened, athiestic doctrines from Socialsim. This enlightened, athiestic doctrine, i.e. to overthrow the existing order, or to promote "change" in social organization and institutions that challenged the power of the church, and exisitng Christian morality, such as the commandment to love thine enemies, the Nazi's got from their Socialist roots.

::Socialism preached hate and envy, and destruction of alleged "oppressors;" Christianity, or the "old social order" preached tolerence and acceptance of all, Greek and Jew alike. This is where Jewish doctine and Christian doctrine separate--Jews adhered to the old Mosaic command to love thine friend and hate thine enemy. Christian doctrine, or the "established order" taught "love thine enemies", even those who oppose themselves. When God was rejected wholesale in the [[French Revolution]], and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of ''Natural Selection of '''Favored Races''''', [[class hate]] and [[class war]], and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (whom it was percieved) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to. '''''It is the enlightened doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races being applied in its most logical, and rational, form.''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* First, it Nazi apologetic to say that Nazism is the most logical and rational. What essential say is that everybody who doesn't share your views '''must''' kill other people based on race. This is a call for genocide, as I see it. And excuses them. Because you say that there is only one logical conclusion, the Nazis had no choice. Which is not true, because they had a choice. You did put into quotes, so I don't know who said it, but since you post it without comment, I have to assume that it also your opinion.
:*I didn't say this at all. I said Nazism is the natural consequence and outgrowth of enlighten Socialism. That is, more specifically, Naxism is the natural consequence of ''both'' the [[Enlightenment]] and [[Karl Marx]], (and [[Darwinism]], an enlightened subfield of 19th century thought). Let me put it quite specifically, it is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the Enlightenment which caused the overthrow of the ''Ancien Regime'' to the Holocaust. There are no divergent paths. It is the natural process and outgrowth of logical thought along that path. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::What you say is that Nazism was unavoidable, it was the logical consequence of the 19th century. This lets all the people of the hook who helped the Nazis to power in the 1930; this lets all the people of the hook who imprisoned, tortured, and killed people during the Third Reich, and it lets all the people off who invaded other countries an bombed and burned their population in WWII. Because it was inevitable in your reasoning. This a very extreme position withing the already disputed Sonderweg theory, and generally rejected, even by other adherents of the Sonderweg theory. It is generally accepted that some important people had the choice to act differently, but they didn't, and if they had acted different, history would be different as well. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 12:26

:::Not at all. What I am saying is worshipping at the altar of science, logic, and reason, in lieu of God, is what the progressive development of 19th century ''thought'' was all about. And yes, destruction is unavoidable when secularism rejected the Jewish God, that is to say, Jehovah - as a Jewish conspiracy, which is what led [[Marie Antoinette]] to the gallows.

:::: Can you point us to an [[atheism|atheist]] who reject all gods, because they think that it is all a jewish conspiracy? Russel? Dawkins? Or Sam Harris? I guess there is none. They reject gods, because they think that they are inconsistent with what they assume to know about the world. Just because you don't like them, and maybe disagree with their reasoning, doesn't mean that you have to vilify them and make up reasons for their atheism, that are not true. The "positive Christianity", advocated by the Nazis, didn't think that it was all a conspiracy, but they thought, that Christ original message, was corrupted by Jews and jewish thought. [[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

:::::I think most of the Nazi's writers certainly make that case, and some point to earlier, 19th century writers to support their arguments. All of them, Hitler & Hess in ''Mien Kampf'', Goebbels, several others all make this central agrument. In particular, read the outline of Hitler's unpublished second book, editied by Joachim Fest, tentative title was ''The Monumental History of Mankind''. It's unmistakeable, "Judah" is responsible for all the planet's problems since time immemorial according to Hitler. Folks like Voltaire, Marx, and Darwin just paved the path for Hitler & Hess (actually Rudolf Hess did write most of ''Mein Kampf''), Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, ''et al''. Betrand Russell and Vladimir Lenin are simply first cousins of this line of "intellectual thought." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And I didn't deny that the Nazis and their "Positive Christianity" did blame Jews, to the contrary I '''did'' actually say it. Problem is "Positive Christianity" is theist, not atheist. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 11:35
::::::::You're going to have to prompt my memory with this one, I really have been away from most of these primary sources since the late 1970s. A link might help, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::And just because secular athiesm has unavoidable consequence does not mean at all that that those consequences are justified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I didn't mean to say that you justified the consequence, I meant to say that it was inevitable, such that in the end no p[erson is personally responsible for the committed crimes.[[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

* Second. Did you call Nazism enlightened? Just because they respected private property, and sold human beings as raw material to the companies to keep their production running?
:*Yes. Nazi's were enlightened atheists who viewed Christianity, as it had been viewed since the time of Voltaire, as a Jewish conspiracy which the Jews themselves did not beleive in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::(1) What has Voltaire to do with the matter? (2) As is said on this page already, Hitlers view was apparently that the true theistic faith that later became Christianity was corrupted by Jews, but he didn't reject the notion of a god. He wanted a religion that was cleansed from the jewish influences. But even if he wasn't an atheist, he still was a bad person. Bin Laden isn't an atheist either. Why are you hung up about proving that he is an atheist, if he said himself that he wasn't. [[User:Order]] 2 August 00:08 (AEST)

:::See above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::This really is a digression, some atheists who do not worship Jehovah worship self or Satan as their god. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

* Third. Even if you keep repeating it, it is wrong to call a movement that had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt when went out to war atheist, or even anti-God. And how do you explain the following sentence from their party program "Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden." Doesn't strike me as anti-God. And I repeat it again, in case you didn't get it, this I do not say that their view of Christianity is in any way compatible with your view on Christianity.
:*The old "Gott mit uns" argument. Actually, that was the inscription on the Imperial German belts '''''in the Erste Welt Krieg'''''; the Nazi's substituted the swastika, and later brought back the old imperial inscription. Further, if you look, it is quotation from the Hebrew scriptures: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for '''God is with us'''." [http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/8-10.htm] And there is a famous photograph of none other than Ernest Hemingway with a First World War (i.e. no swastika) "Gott mit uns" belt buckle in the 1930s. Do an internet search if you want to see it. Finally, if you're reaching for this argument, it means you're running out of gas. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::* It seem like you can buy those belt buckles of the internet. I don't want to post neo-nazi sites on this page, but google for ''' "gott mit uns" hakenkreuz''', and you will find where you can buy them.
:::*For the second time "Gott mit uns" is (a) from the Hebrew scriptures, and (b) from Imperial Germany. Using this logic, we should abandoned the Hebrew scriptures because the Nazi's ripped them off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure how long will take until it get through to you, but I still didn't say that Christianity is Nazism. And I also did not say that Christianity is using Nazi symbols. I said that Nazis used references to God. And that many Nazis, and among them quite likely Hitler himself, were theists. This means that they weren't atheists. You might know that "theist" is not the same as being a "Christian". And you might also know that not being a "Christian" following your particular interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean that you are an "atheist". The Nazis advocated "positive Christianity", something which should be different from your version of Christianity, but which is still decidedly theist. This is something different from saying that Christians are Nazis. What is so difficult to understand about that? you are barking up the wrong tree. For days. And I am telling you for days. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 23:58

:::::Ok, this argument is difficult for obvious reason. Hitler certainly did not accept the existence or soveriegnty of the Jewish God, Jehovah. Neither did Hitler accept the old Nordic gods like Wotan, despite some rumors (Ludendorf perhaps did). Hitler may have believed in some sort of Providence, as Menachim Begin referred to, also. Who is this "Providence"? IMHO, it is was most likely Satan, however if Hitler were here, and if you asked him, he'd probably most certainly deny it and laugh, as most Hollywood movie producers would laugh also at the same question.
:::::So, we're at the crossroads in examining where a person may actually be admitting to some divine supernatural being greater then themselves that they are in subservience to. Most spiritually decieved people never even get this far, laboring under the notion that they themselves are god, i.e. that their life purpose is to serve themself. Now, if a deluded soul arrives at the point where they recognize a supernatural power apart from themself, more powerful than themself, and to whom they owe some sort of debt even, and at the same time pointedly denying this supernatural power is Jehovah, for all intents and purposes we can conclude they are avowed Satanists. So the only remaining question is, when Hitler survived the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, and Goebbels convinced Hitler Providence intervened, did he really believe it, or was he just going along with another propaganda scheme?

:::::Whatever you conclude from all this, you're not going to find a very widely accepted doctrine, even among Nazi party members. The vast majority of Nazi party members, and even sympathetic non-party members, were simply garden variety athiestic socialists, who would laugh at the idea they worshipped and/or served Satan. Yes, there were occultists, like Himmler and many top Nazi's, but the vast majortiy of the public just looked on this behavior not very different from the seances [[Hillary Clinton]] used to hold on the [[White House]] roof. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:40, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
::*And what about point 24 in the progam of the NSDAP? About "positive christianity" [[User:Order]]

* Thanks for proving my point. I said: '''I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach''', but you still could help giving me the spiel that Nazism and Christianity is different. Read my postings for a change, instead of making stuff. It seems that you can only argue against stuff I didn't say. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:23

:*Wikipedia, believe it or not, has a good article on Hanns Kerrl. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Kerrl] This could be expanded upon, and I hope to do so here in CP. For now, here's a quote from Hitler in ''Tischgesprache'', 14th December 1941 Midday,
::*"Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity...is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* Nice quote. Of course there is a dispute about the "Tischgespraeche itself. whether they took place in the form Kerrl reported. But lets no go down this road. Lets take it at face value. It say that he doesn't like the Christian message of forgivenes and compassion. And guess what, that is what I told now already countable time myself. So why do you keep on hammering this point?
* Actually, a very nice quote. Because he actually says that he reject Bolshevism wholeheartedly. That the he sees a Bolshevistic aspect in Christianity, and that it is exactly this aspect that is incompatible with Nazism. This quote proves that the Fuehrer himself believed that bolshevism and Nazism were incompatible. You made my point, Rob. Thanks. [[User:Order]] 1 August 14:00
:*Yes. Nazism simply replaced the word "bourgeois" in [[Marxist]] rhetoric, with "Jewish", but all the other rhetoric remained the same (incidentally, the [[DNC]] does this very same thing, instead of "rich Jew", they simply use "The Rich.") [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
You didn't answer one my questions, and I am still curious: Are you by any chance of Conservative Lutheran North German descent? [[User:Order|Order]] 23:35, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:I am of mixed race: 50% German 50% Slavic. I was raised Catholic, but today am moreless a Dispensationalist Christian. Some roots come from Stetin (Szczecin) which was mixed German/Polish & defintiely devout Catholic when they arrived in America; others come from Slovakia. And there were "mixed marriages" in the US, i.e. my mothers father was Lutheran. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
===contemporaneous corroboration===
Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the [[Phoney War]] which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

<center>'''From 1905 to 1940'''</center>
:'''The downfall of bourgeois democracy in Europe did not begin with Hitler. Hitler is a result not a cause'''. The crisis of Europe first showed itself in the Russian revolution of 1905. That it was a world crisis and not a European crisis was proved by the course of the war in 1914. That war neither ended nor made the world safe for democracy. '''The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy''' in country after country, with or '''without the violent defeat of the socialist movement''', and the steady preparation for the second imperialist war. '''Without socialism, the war of 1939''', Hitler victory or no Hitler victory, '''must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''' all over Europe, the development of the totalitarian state in America, and still further battles for the re-division of the world.

:'''The question that faces us, therefore, as Marxian socialists, is to estimate soberly, at this critical moment, what are the possibilities for the socialist revolution''', the only force that can check the descent into the abyss and reverse the process of disintegration. The possibility of an early Hitler victory, the tremendous power displayed by the German military machine, the inevitable demoralization of the anti-Hitler forces in Germany by his uninterrupted march of success – these things undoubtedly have altered the former perspective of a long drawn-out war ending in immediate revolution. Let us, however, before we speculate on the future, examine the past.
*Source:[http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol06/no04/editorial.htm#s1 ''Blitzkrieg and Revolution''], An Editorial, From New International, Vol.6 No.4, May 1940, pp.83-87.

And here is the Hayek quote:

:"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it."

'''Analysis of comparison;''' while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the ''New International'' editorial uses "democracy." In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the ''New International''. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: ''Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the ''New International''. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 10:00 (AET)

::The question simply is over blame. Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement." Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it. But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:So all you wanted to say it that democracies in 1920/30s democracies in Europe failed. I don't need Hayek or the New International to tell that. In Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, and even in Poland and Austria, democracy wasn't going too well. If this is what you want to say both quotes aren't that great to make that point. Given that the other paragraphs in the article are referring to actual events, and not to interpretations from 30 years later, or from a contemporary opinion pieces, you should refer to events in the other countries to make your point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 18:00

::A reading of both documents is illuminating (and other materials could support it, too). We extracted just one sentence from Hayek, but the whole paragraph sheds even more light, and other quotes, too. Hayek says something to the effect of "fascism is the result when people realize Communism does not work" (to put it another way, Socialism, which evolves into Communism, does not bring democracy, it brings fascism). ''The New International'' quote above says the same thing, "Hitler is a result not a cause." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:58, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

It is agreed that, if not the idea of fascism, then at least the rise of fascism in Europe was a reaction to communism, especially to the rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. But even for that their are better quotes to find that support this.

Anyway, what we have now are eight sections on Hitlers life. Look at them one by one:

* ''The Beginning Of His Political Life'': 2 paragraphs, both on fact and events.
* ''Beer Hall Putsch'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''Path to Power'' 2 paragaphs on fact and events. And '''one''' sentence of interpretation, the Hayek quote.
* ''Consolidation of Power'': 4 paragraphs on fact and events.
* ''Holocaust'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''1944 Assassination Attempt'': 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Marriage'' : 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Death'' :: 1 paragraph on facts and events.

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go. [[User:Order]] 6 august 10:20

:Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading. What we know is, that communism and fascism ''do not'' represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a ''process'' who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'. The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.

:: Where does 'reaction' implies polar opposites? Where? Every person in his right mind knows that both were totalitarian. [[User:Order]]
:::The problem with this one is the usual misinformation taught at the junior high school level in definition of "reactionary;" while on one level, fascim indeed was a "reaction" to communism, it was actually part of a progressive process, not a reactionary polar opposite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
:There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism. I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

You are applying the cold-war and 1980's US definition of "Liberal", because actual Liberals of that time, and Hayek is a prime example, would strongly disagree with you. They would probably hit you with a stick. Liberals like Hayek were firmly the opposed to both socialism and fascism, because both were totalitarian. Also it is provably wrong to say that people first embraced socialism, before they became fascists. Many embraced fascism right away, from being national conservative, or monarchist, or whatever other -ism you had in that time. Often out of fear of Bolshevism. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:30

:I agree the contemporary, popular use of the term "liberal" is a misnomer, particularly in the United States. The correct term is "socialist," even with its US shading to mean "treasonous," which is becoming more apparant as time goes by. It is unfortunate, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Boris Yeltsin, all [[classical liberal]]s, did somewhat rehabitilate the term in the 1980s & early 90s, but the old perjoritives all came back to stick (most probably through Rush Limbaugh and the lifting of the [[Fairness Doctrine]], which is very well explained in CP's entry). FWIW, it looks like we're stuck with the pejoritive, contemporary American meaning of the term liberal. Of course, the [[MSM]] and the [[DNC]] have been of little help in clarifing its real meaning. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==von Papen==

I see that the Hayek quote is still in there. I also saw that you portrayed the period of imperial Germany as one in which it was a socialist paradise. And also there you quote Hayek. Hayek would hit you with a stick for this, because he knew perfectly well that this is plain ridiculous. Imperial Germany was Bismarck, Kulturkampf, Nationalismus, Demokratiedefizit, Sozialistenerlaesse, Sozialversicherung, Flottenausbau, Wilhelm Zwo.

And when it comes to the beginnings of the Third Reich you might want check which party van Papen belonged to, which parties did vote, under pressure but they did, in favour of his empowerment laws, which party the rest of Hitlers first cabinet belong too, which parties were part of the Harzburg front, the political background of Hugenberg, Schacht, and others who actually helped Hitler to power. You can impossibly claim that it was all just a socialist endeavor. But it seems that fact don't count here, while I had hope that we could keep spin out of the a subject as important as Hitler. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting premise; one of the charges against von Papen at Nuremberg was he was part of the Nazi conspiracy, but as you just pointed out, he was never a member of the Nazi Party. Why can't these things ever be discussed dispassionately? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Exactly, my point. He wasn't a member of the Nazi party, he was a prominent member of the Zentrum party, a Catholic Party, and he still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, dare I ask the question, is it unfair to refer to him as a "Nazi War Criminal"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
It might be unfair, not sure what the Nuremberg Trial decided. Did I call him "Nazi War Criminal"? To the contrary, the point is that he probably isn't, but that he was a fairly normal German centrist politician, who still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Truth is, he really had a disdain for Hitler, and Hitler didn't care much for von Papen either. And their mutual distrust and resentment had little to do with politics. It was a class difference. Von Papen regarded Hitler as an ill-mannered low-life, and Hitler thought von Papen an artistocratic snob. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:There is famous newsreel footage with no audio of [[Treaty of Munich]] that reveals the difference between the two. Von Papen and Hitler are leading the guests which include Ciano & Chamberlain into a room. Hitler plops himself down in a chair, while von Papen observes the diplomatic nicities of remaining standing until all the guests are in the room and seated. Hitler clearly is embarassed the moment he sits down and sees von Papen remaining standing, and its all caught on film. He knows he looks crude, rude, selfish, and inexperienced in just simple manners, let alone protocol, or "high class" manners. And it's almost as if he feels deliberately tricked by von Papen into making himself look bad. Very revealing, if uyou ever get a chance to see it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
So, van Papen didn't even like this guy, and still helped him to get to power, and worked for him until Munich. So, we found already one person who wasn't an ideologue but was still working for the third Reich. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::So the Foreign Minster of the Third Riech wasn't even a Nazi, was not one of the 22 Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg (although history remembers him that way), was found innocent at Nuremberg of being part of the Nazi conspiracy to (a) sieze power (b) make aggresive war (c) etc., although you persist in making that charge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Did the Nuremberg trail say that it was a conspiracy? I doubt so. And indeed, van Papen helped Hitler to power, I guess there is little discussion about it. One might argue about his motivation, but seems to not much of a mystery either. [[User:Order|Order]] 04:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it did. The [[Treaty of Munich]] was a "conspiracy against Peace", as well as all the other events (re-occupation of Rhineland, Invasion of Poland, etc.) Then there was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", etc.
:One should read the Nuremberg Indictment in its entirety [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count.htm]. It really is not that long. And it sets out all the major issues to be dealt with prior and afterwards. (One writer has explained why the charge of "conspiracy", Britian needed it to CYA for thier policy of appeasement, i.e. Britian couldn't live up to treaty obligations because it was a victim of a conspiracy--and von Papen's aquittal addresses that argument).
:You will see, for example, the Katyn massacre. Peculiar, isn't it, that while the Western Powers knew this Soviet charge was false, and that indeed one of the Administators of Justice in this case himself was guilty of the charge, allowed it to become part of the historical record (this record, which then was resurrected in the mid 1990's as the model of Administering International Justice for War Crimes); also, after reading the horrors that the Soviet's present, we almost get comic relief at France's idea of Crimes Against Humanity, like plunder of property [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm#sec8e]

:Wine..................................................................7,647,000 hectolitres.

:Champagne...................................................87,000,000 bottles

:Beer...................................................................3,821,520 hectolitres

:Various kinds of alcohol.................................1,830,000 hectolitres

:The myth of France as a "Great Power" (or for that matter, a "victim" when France provided more manpower, and more [[GDP]] to the Nazi cause than it did to defend, or liberate, itself, is something that at some point needs to clarified in the English language.

:Another point, the various charges of "mass deportation of populations", while Germans were being deported east of the Oder-Niese, the Keelhaul Agreement, the Crimean Taters, the Volga Germans etc. etc. etc. were occuring, has never been addressed (outside of Solzhenitsyn's ''Gulag Archipeligo''), or "systematic malnutrition", which Lenin & Stalin perfected long before Hitler adopted [[Bolshevik]] methods. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

The [[Treaty of Munich]] happened after the seizure of power. And saying the this treaty was "a conspiracy against peace", is also something slightly different than claiming that "Nazism is a conspiracy". And the rest are tangents. The question was still about who helped Hitler to power, not what happened afterwards or elsewhere. And von Papen was still one of the people who brought Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:04, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, all we have is the historical record. And the Nuremberg trial rendered its verdict. You are arguing the case that everyone deficient in psychic powers in 1933 is complicit in genocide.

:It's not unlike the recent book on IBM; because Nazi's purchased IBM equipment, all the shareholders, employees, and Board of Directors past and present who "did business with the Nazi's" are complicit in genocide. By this line of argument, if Nazi's purchased Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toilet Paper, Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toiler Paper likewise "did business with the Nazi's." Don't forget Hitler's shoeshine boy, he must have been involved, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:25, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Did I somewhere say that van Papen is responsible for genocide? I agreed that the Nuremberg trial is probably the instance that had to decide on this. So but what you say that that van Papen is as responsible for Hitlers rise to power as Hitler shoe shine boy. Did the shoe shine boy go to Hindenburg and convince him to make Hitler chancellor? I doubt it. What I see that you go on all kinds tangents, just because you are unable to accept the historical fact that there were centrist and conservative politicians who helped Hitler to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the probelm: Hitler was legally came to power under the then Wiemar Constitution. He overwhelmingly won a popular election as well. The Wiemar Constitution wasn't even indigenous, it was imposed as a "liberal reform."

:Now, if you are to allege that Hitler, a common scum, came to power outside of some secret Masonic Illuminati cabal that really controls things, and therefore Hitler and the Nazis claim on power was illigimate, we have a problem there. As it is, Hitler was never invited by the French government to visit Paris anytime from the day he came to power. Why is this? Because he was illigitmate? Because he was outside of a clique of insiders who determine who should hold power? Do you see where this line of rhetoric is going to lead you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

You try to get the discussion on all kinds of tangents, like whether the constitution was indigenous, Masonic Illuminati, French inviting Hitler for supper, IBM, Crest tooth paste. Rob, you are alleging all kinds of things that I never said, and that frankly do not even matter. Fact is Hitler came to power under the Weimar constitution. Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Fact is also that he didn't win a majority of seats, so he needed the help of others. And van Papen was one of then who helped. And Hugenberg another. BTW: While van Papen wasn't found guilty in the Nuremberg trial to be one of the main criminals, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison during denazification for his role as collaborator and enabler. Why is it so hard for you to admit the fact that there were conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. No, you rather talk about Illuminati to not to have admit this simple fact. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:56, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, welfare queens & labor unions help Bill Clinton get into power, despite the fact he sold them down the river with NAFTA & Welfare Reform. Do you think they might have voted any different if they knew they'd be "stabbed in the back"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
For discussing Bill Clinton, go to the entry [[Bill Clinton]]. We are discussing Hitler's path to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK. What's wrong with this text:
:*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.

:Seems to say what you want it to say. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

No surprise. I wrote it.

Problem is still the Hayek quote that you took out of context. It suggests that the path to power was purely a socialist endeavor. However, and I cite you citing me:
*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.''

See, it wasn't just the socialists who brought Weimar down. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:11, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:What Hayek is saying is liberalism, in the classic sense, was weakened to non-existent to oppose Nazism. And your use of conservative here likewise is problematic; the titled nobility of Germany, or for that matter all of Europe, is "conservative" in the European sense. As we've had this discussion elsewhere, the US Constitution expressly prohibits the government from conferring titles. So the express meaning of the term here, "conservative" to refer to von Papen and others is wholely out of context in attempt to draw a parallel to contemporary American conservativism.
:Shame on you, Order, I have more respect for you and your skills than this feeble reasoning your pushing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Classic liberalism was indeed weakened, and the permanent attacks from both sides of the spectrum didn't help. But where did the liberals go? Some went left, other went right. My use of "conservative" is fairly consistent with the use by the people in question themselves. The DNVP, the German National People Party, was for example the legitimate successor of the pre-WWI Konservative Partei, the Conservative Party. This is the party that helped Hitler to a majority of seats in parliament. Same holds for von Papen, he was from the conservative wing of the Zentrum party. I said it a few times in this thread already that contemporary US interpretations of 'left' and 'right' don't apply to the 1930s in Germany, so I am not sure what you are complaining about. And there is no shame in pushing the fact that there were also conservative politicians in Germany who made didn't mind that Weimar failed, who didn't shed a tear when Hitler came to power. One of the lesson of the Third Reich is that if you fail to fix an imperfect democracy for short term political gain, you might end up with something worse in the long run. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:32, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:This is an interesting discussion. Truth is, its been many years since I've reviewed any of these source materials in detail. Likewise I did read von Papen's memoirs many many years ago, and am familiar with his case. Seems much of this discussion only grabs tidbits from this or that source, usually out of context, so let's make some effort to set the materials before us (incidentally, von Papen was sentenced to 8 years, yet served less than two; and this is not the place to go into why he was tried a second time after being aquited the first time).
::There's is nothing special about it. The Nuremberg Trials where aimed at the top of the regime, while the Denazification was aimed to determine the involvement of all people who held office, 2.5 million people in the western Germany alone. He probably was sentenced as 'offender'. The majority were judged to be 'followers', or even acquitted. Von Papen obviously wasn't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::He was tried twice because of the outrage over the verdict. Double jeopardy goes against Anglo-American jurisprudence. Even the Soviet Judges could not find conspiracy on his part. And when the poltical situation changed in 1949, so did the second verdict against von Papen. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::The Soviets didn't agree with the judgment of the Nuremberg trial and wrote dissenting Opinion[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-dissenting-von-papen.html]. The second trial was in a civil court, and I guess it happens also in the US that someone is found not guilty of criminal charges, but gets convicted in civil court nevertheless. But I couldn't find much about the second trial, so I trust you that the second trial was a result of public outrage. I guess that proves that while he might have not been guilty in criminal court, he messed up politically. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK, let's look at the original indictment, and then the Judgement. Von Papen is indeed charged with all the same things you are charging him with here: "Von Papen Used His Personal Influence To Promote The Accession Of The Nazis To Power. " ''et seqq'' [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02/nca-02-16-18-index.html]

:Let's look at the Judgement: "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January;" Wikipedia reports "The central role that Papen played in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 was reflected by Papen's indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, though he was acquitted on formal reasons, the tribunal deciding that his "political immoralities" were not under its jurisdiction." This of course, is totally false, as the Nuremberg Judgement clearly, clearly states: "The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. " [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-defendants-von-papen.html]

:Conlcusion: (a) von Papen's "political immortality" (singular), as rendered by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, related to the Anschluss, '''''and not the Nazi's regimes rise to power in Germany.''''' Further, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal fails to make any mention whatsoever about any sort of complicity in conspiracy or for that matter anything about his role in helping Hitler gained power. All the Tribunal found, as cited above, is "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," with the final verdict, "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged."

:So lets get the facts in order before we even discuss making generalizations. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

So, we still agree that he wasn't one of about 20 people that were found guilty as war criminals in the Nuremberg Trial. Thanks for posting the judgment. The second paragraph of the judgment refers exactly to what we are discussing here. "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933 ". That he was found not guilty for his role in the Anschluss is another matter. That happened a few years later. Thanks again for posting the official judgment which essentially confirms what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:So what was he guilty of as "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," since contrary to ''both'' you ''and'' Wikipedia's claim, the Tribunal found this '''''did not''''' even constitute an offense against "political morality", let alone a crime, or conspiracy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I still didn't say that he was part of the conspiracy to start an agressive war. And why should we care what Wikipedia says. The tribunal had to determine which people were responsible for the ''aggressive war''. It judged that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that von Papen was involved in planning an aggressive war. That is why they acquitted the charges. However, the tribunal found him politically responsible, but that under the charter of the tribunal, they couldn't convict him for "such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be". Anyway, this all refers to the Anschluss, and we where talking about his involvement in Hitler's path to power. And here the judgment states clearly that von Papen helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:Big deal. There was no crime in it. In fact, Hitler came to power legally.

:Now, when the Tirbunal sat down in November 1945, they brought up all this conspiracy stuff about a "siezure of power"; as the trial progressed, it became fairly obvious there may have been "backstairs" dealings, but that how the sytem works, even under the US Constitution. By the time the verdict was reached, the Judges were faced with the sad fact that Hitler abided by the rules to "sieze power."

:Now many peolple have never been happy with these facts, and wish to condemn Hitler & everybody connected with from his mothers womb for all that followed. The German people today speak of the "Nazi seizure of power", obviously to take comfort themeselves in denial because the truth is he came to power Consitutional, by democratic means, and the people voted for him. But its easier for contemporay Germans to play the role of victim along with everybody else.

:Then your argument, that somehow everybody involved in his ascention was illigitimate; this really itself sounds like Nazi rhetoric. Cause the root of this arguement is that Hitler was unnapporved by the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy that controls and decides who is legitimate. And this is the very argument you are putting forward. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

* Where do I say that the Nazis seizure of power overcame the German people? Where did I say that it was an illegitimate action? And most important where did I use Nazi rhetoric? Don't make stuff up stuff that I didn't say. Or show me where.
* As a German myself I can tell you that just a few Germans comfort themselves with the myth that it was an illegal power grab. The failure of Weimar is taught and discussed in great detail, including the decline of liberal democracy, the failure of democrats to work together, the anti-democratic forces on both sides of the spectrum, and also the role (and call it naivety) of von Papen and the likes when it came to Hitler. Don't make up stuff about how the end of Weimar is discussed in Germany.
* It was about political and moral responsibility all the time. You went on all kind of tangents, like the war tribunal, and whether von Papen was a war criminal. The question wasn't if von Papen was a War Criminal, but if he and other conservative politicians have a share in the political and also moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power.
* You bring up the in the Illuminati stuff without reason. If your best bet is to bring up weird conspiracies that I didn't mention, your arguments must be poor. And then on top of it you claim that I use Nazi rhetoric.
* Hitler came to power through legitimate means because he got help from others. And these other were conservative politicians like von Papen and Hugenberg. No need to tell you that Von Papen was Vice-chancellor, and Hugenberg Minister in Hitler first administration.

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:*''where did I use Nazi rhetoric? ''
::*In the Nazi view, the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was a Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and established a Constitutional Republic. This "Jewish Conspiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated ''who'' the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be. The Nazi's viewed themselves as "seizing power" from this Jewish-Illuminati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.

:::In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was seized away from the Nazi's coalition partners when parliamentary rule was ended.

:::When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution. Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933. The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda. That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illegitimate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its sovereignty.

::::Where do I say any that the Nazi seizes the power from an international conspiracy? Where? Where did I bring up the Illuminati? You say that I use Nazi rhetoric, while I didn't say any of those things. Show me otherwise. This is a challenge.

::::To the contrary, I was always pointing to his coalition partners. Do not make up stuff that I never said. Otherwise, show me.[[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::You might as well blame a constitutional democracy for Hilter's rise, because that is exactly what happened. The system was designed for coalition governments in the absence of an absolute majortiy. Bottomline again, the coalition parnters were not Nazi's; if they were Nazi's they would have quit thier minortiy parties and joined the Nazi party. But that did not happen. Instead, once Hitler became Chancellor, he ignored and violated thier rights, too.

::::::So, did I say otherwise? After the Hitler came to power, some politicians from conservative did actually join the NSDAP. Anyway, bottomline is indeed that his coalition partners weren't Nazi's, but conservative politicians like von Papen. As I said from the beginning of this thread. {{unsigned|Order}}

:*''why should we care what Wikipedia says.''

::*A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistently referred to the "Nazi seizure of power." The Nazi's in fact did not seize power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Weimar Constitution. The Nazi's ''did'' seize power from their democratic coalition partners when they ended parliamentary rule.

:::Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazis came to power illegitimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans. They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "seized power" from their coalition partners ''after'' January 1933.

:::The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "seized power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Did I say any of this? Didn't I say the opposite. I was permanently pointing to Hitlers coalition partners. Don't make stuff up or show me otherwise. Or is this supposed to be proof that Germans at large think that the Hitler came to power illegally, by pointing to an experience you had on Wikipedia a few years ago. If you trust Wikipedia that much, go to the German version of Wikipedia, and what they say about Machtergreifung. I will be edited mostly by German editors, and I doubt that it says that it was an illegal act to get power from back an international conspiracy. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your point is along the lines that, "Why did von Papen, et al, form a coalition government ''with'' the Nazis, ''against'' the Comintern apparat?" This question is easy to answer. While the murderous nature of the Comintern organizations against ''thier'' imaginary enemies was known in 1933, no one knew the Nazis would adopt and apply Bolshevik methods against the Nazis imaginary enemies to the extent that they did after 1933. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::Where did I say that von Papen should have sided with the Comintern. Where? It is generally agreed that at the beginning of 1933 there was no need to form a coalition government with the Nazis. The Nazi had just lost their first state elections, and the economy was picking up. Von Papen had to convince Hindenburg. Sure, von Papen probably didn't have the foresight that it would almost cost his life in the Night of Long Knives, nor that it would lead to a total war. But he rather than trying to fix the democracy, he was actively pushing to get somebody into power, who was fairly open about his aims to abolish democracy. Fascism was known, and von Papen knew it too.

:::::::So von Papen used democratic means to destroy democracy? I think you may be mischaracterizing von Papen's political views. Von Papen was an anti-Communist. Not all anit-Communists are fascists, however in this instance a coalition between some democratic elements was made with fascists to prevent Soviet-backed Comintern subversion. You repeatedly speak of "bares responsibiltiy;" the Weimar Constitution itself bares responsibility, it did precisely what it was designed to do. Hitler was speaking of rebuilding the German military; industrialists & the miltiary liked this idea. That does not make them racists or advocates of genocide. That makes them partners in a coalition government with Nazis, nothing more and nothing less. When the Nazis began diabusing ''thier'' rights, some joined the nationalist movement, some did not.

:::::::In sum, once again, the Tribunal rendered its verdict, not just regarding von Papen, but '''also''' regarding the whole question as to conspiracy & morality around the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power. What it really does look like is, other than von Papen being Catholic, what crime or moral offense is he guilty of?

::::::::I didn't blame him for being catholic (see below). And the tribunal said in its verdict that Von Papen bears responsibility for the events in that got Hitler into power. The tribunal acquitted Von Papen for other charges. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::This brings me back to the question: Who bears more responsibility for the getting Hitler into power: von Papen or Ossietsky? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:The question that I posed remains unanswered. Who, in your opinion Rob, has bears more responsibility for Hitler's rise to power. Von Ossietsky or Von Papen. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Since you keep referring to things I never said, a brief list of thing we did agree on, and a list of things I actually did say.

First, we agree that von Papen was
* a catholic
* conservative
* anti-communist
* member of the Zentrum Party

I don't blame him for any of this. If I'd be living in the 1930s it would probably apply to me, since all of my 4 grandparents were catholic, conservative, anti-communist voters of the Zentrum party. There is no blame in that.

However, von Papen has responisbility for his deeds. In particular.

* Von Papen revoked as Chancellor in June 1932 the ban on SA and SS.
* Von Papen was actively pursuing the end of the Schleicher administration in January 1933.
* Von Papen then gathered support to get Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor in a coalition government.
* Von Papen was vice-chancellor in Hitler's government.
* Von Papen was leading the political alliance of national conservative parties in the March 1933 election, which provided Hitler the remaining seats to get a majority in parliament.
He shares political responsibility for this. We are not talking a criminal charges, but about political responsibility. For the rise and consolidation of Hitlers power, up to the Empowerment laws, or if you like even up to the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler got von Papen to resign as vice-chancellor. That he wasn't found guilty of war crimes is another issue altogether. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Where is there a crime in any of this? How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense? And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.

:There is plenty of information available to condemn the Nazi's with. Using half truths, innuendo, and falsehoods based upon the Nazi's own falsehoods only impugns the integrity of the historical reporter, and makes all his reporting biased and suspect. Such is the case with Wikipedia right now, and it may not be their own invention, they may actually be just parroting the lies and falsehoods they've inherited.

:The point of propagating and expounding these half truths and falsehoods you actually may have articulated in this discussion; it is not to give accurate historical reporting, nor to gather experience and warning signs for future generations. It is to twist the facts of history, such as we've seen in the Wikipedia articles, to impugn contemporary imagined political opponents, in this case "conservatives." How is this being done? (a) refusing to admit the godless socialist nazis rose in a marxist revolution against the powers that be, in thier view, the "Jewish International" financiers who destroyed the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov monarchies which had kept the peace for 100 years; (b) blaming the enemies of Communism, the Church and other anti-Communists, for anti-Semitic fascist ideals and intent.

:The bottomline here is, using the Nazi's own view of themselves, that they were illegitimate outsiders to the Jewish international cabal that wrote the Treaty of Versailles, illegally and by immoral means rose up and seized power from the legitimate powers that be, i.e. the "Jewish financiers" behind the Treaty of Versailles, to put a spin on history with the real intent to attack modern political opponents with, is unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

The discussion isn't about Nazi ideology, and I in particular didn't push any Nazi views that involve a Jewish conspiracy (or show me other wise), and this is irrelevant for the discussion for Von Papen, because he wasn't a Nazi in the first place. But your first paragraph is to the point, so i'll respond to that.

* ''Where is there a crime in any of this?''. I said repeatedly that we are not talking about criminal charges.
* ''How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense?'' Everybody bears responsibility for his deeds, even for the legal ones. This also applies also in politics, and there are countless example of immoral but legal behavior in politics.
* ''And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.'' Von Papen was the Chancellor of Germany, and he had access to police and army. I hope that we agree that the SA and SS weren't out to enforce the law, but a fascist mob instead. Von Papen didn't use or need the SA and SS to prevent or solve violent crimes by the communist mob. He legalized it to get political backing from the NSDAP for his minority cabinet.

All these acts were legal, sure, but Von Papen did it for political reasons, and carries hence political responsibility for these acts. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:01, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Path to Power (Continued) ==
You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:The Tribunal examined all the questions and rendered its verdict. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:46, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::The tribunal said that von Papen shares moral and political responsibility for getting Hitler into power. Cool. So I take it as admission that it was not just socialism was responsible for the end of the Weimar Republic, but that conservative politicians like von Papen also bear some responsibility. The only reasonable thing to do right now would be to remove the Hayek quote, because as it is quoted it suggest otherwise. You can either do it yourself, or unlock the article and I am happy to remove it myself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::You are still reading this in the verdict that are not there. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Lets get a third person to read the verdict and see if the second paragraph says "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933." and then to look at the end which says "Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war" and he was found not guilty of that charge. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Here's the paragraph condensed:

:"The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria '''was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime''' and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss....he '''engaged in''' both '''intrigue''' and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such '''offenses against political morality''', however bad these may be. Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war....."

::So, we agree that the tribunal did find him not guilty for his role in the Anschluss, since '''offenses against political morality''' do not fall under the charter. That is kind of exactly what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Now, at the moment I am reading the case of [[Helen Scott]], one of several [[Comintern]] opperatives who "engaged in political immorality" and "intrigue" (haven't found any "bullying" yet). Who was Helen Scott? Helen Scott was one of several Comintern opperatives who, as an American citizen, was an agent of the Soviet Union ''and '''was appointed to the staff of American prosecutors at the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]].'''''

Care to collaborate on [[Helen Grace Scott Keenan]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll think about it. But I try to stay focussed, and not get into to much at once. Thanks. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:You will see on the [[Talk:Munich conference]], for example, we just reviewed other material from the War Crimes Tribunal regarding Nazi infiltration and subversion of the Czech and Slovak regime; here for example, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/], we have evidence of a "Campaign within Czechoslovakia since 1934"; Helen Scott was a member of an organization that was found to be controlled by a foreign government actively seeking the violent removal of the United States Government long before WWII broke out, she was a member of that same organization when she took employment with the United States Government, which was illegal. And she was the agent of a foreign power when she worked on the staff of the American Prosecutors at Nurermberg.

:So, today we have information available that was not avialable for nearly 50 years. My point is, much of what we know about all of these events needs to be re-analyized. But first we must assemble the facts before we can do a review. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:56, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

----
:::The Tribunal did not say that. It said von Papen was "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," and "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty." Where in any of this is there a quesion of moral responsibiblity?

:::::He was found not guilty in the conspiracy to start an aggressive war and the not guilty of a conspiracy to undermine the Austrian government. Did I say otherwise? Can you for once show me where I say either of these. But the judgment also says that he was morally responsible for the Anschluss and the beginnings of the regime, but that couldn't try him for that because it didn't fall under the charter of the tribunal. Please read the judgment carefully. Just because he was acquitted from charges for starting the war, doesn't mean that they acquitted him from blame for his part in Hitler's first administration. To the contrary, the judgment '''explicitly''' states that he shares responsibility for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The Nazi's, true to their Socialists roots, viewed themselves in the true Socialist sense of rising up against the powers that be, i.e. in thier view rising up against the Jewish Internaitional bankers conspiracy that killed three monarchies (Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romonov), dismembered Germany, and saddled theme with a war debt. Marx said the common scum peons, i.e. people like the low life Nazi's would seize power in a Revolution. In thier view they did just this, they seized power for the Jewish International bankers. Now to allege then in 1933, at the time of Nuremberg in 1945, or today, that the Nazi "seizure of power" was illigitimate in any sense, is to agree with the Nazi's, because that is exactly how they viewed themselves. They viewed themselves as a rogue regime against "the International Jewish conspiracy." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::So, what? Where did I say that the seizure of power was illegitimate? Where? Tell me? You are barking up the wrong tree. We are discussing von Papen, and the events that brought about end of the Weimar Republic. It seems that you are unable to stick to the topic, and the topic is who helped Hitler into power. Marx, the conspiracy charges, the Illuminati, the Anschluss, Jewish International bankers, all probably very interesting, but besides the point. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==new img==
Actually that man in the new img may not be Hitler. Hitler, as Stalin & Saddam Hussein likewise, were all known to use doubles for some public appearances, the man in that photo may actually be one of Hitler's doubles. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution of the Hitler article ==

It used to be a fairly factual article. Now it turns into something like an opinion piece, pointing to everybody CP disagrees with as causes for Hitler. This isn't encyclopedic anymore, and the really bad thing about it is, that one of the main message of the Third Reich gets lost, namely that fairly decent people from all backgrounds can under the influence of a bad ideology, commit heinous crimes. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:54, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:The entire evolution bit is a discussion of the ideology of "eugenics" an "race hygiene". It is not really at its right spot. All other paragraph refer to actual events. The discussion of evolution should go into a discussion section, or a separate article, probably under the header "Eugenics". [[User:Order|Order]] 22:10, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

**Know whats funny this is the first conservative i have seen on this wiki that has not been glorified. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 18:08, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler's wax effigy ==

It might interest the primary editors of this article to note that the wax effigy of Adolf Hitler, in a glass case built into a wall, guards the entrance to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's Wax Works in [[London]], [[England]]. Or at least it did in 1988 when I toured London with my family.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:15, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Again, probably not releveant to the article, but there was an amusing story run in the press some time ago suggesting that the dummies hair was actually growing! Quite probably nonsense, but I thought it might interest posters! [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]

==Improved the article==
Before anyone gets in a dither, I improved the article. There was just nothing in it pertaining to even the smallest biography of this individual that could be considered useful before. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

What I did not touch upon, and it could be included in future edits, were these:
*Accusastions of, or toleration for, homosexuality in his early years prior to the Night of the Long Knives. It was known that Hitler used people to further his own ends.
*Geli Raubal, and implications she may have had a forced affair with Hitler that led to her suicide.
*Detailed info regarding his childhood
And it could use some good quotes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== First Sentence ==

Since this is locked, I'd just like to point out that it's not actually a sentence. ;)[[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:It's more or less a title...and I didn't know it was locked! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::No, the actual first sentence is missing a verb. Actually the whole first paragraph could use some clean up. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::You could do it...just keep in mind that it's an introductory paragraph. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I did. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Need to point out something: Hitler was directly responsible for the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and that has to be emphasized. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

True, but the introductory paragraph suggests that WWII was a response to the Holocaust. It remains uncertain to this day what was and wasn't known about the attrocities being perpetrated against the Jews et al, but it was the need to counter German Imperialism that led to countries becoming involved in the war, not, as much as we would like to believe, a moral stance against the shoah. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 12:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler and against various christian groups ==

Hitler and against various christian groups at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== we need to give the various evidences and deal with them in a scholarly manner ==

We need to give the cite evidences put forth for Hitler not being a Christian and Hitler being a Christian and give reasoanble scholars commentary on them. For example, the scholarly debate regarding Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler and the occult, Hitler and paganism, Mein Kempf references to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe there is a strong case for Hitler being a Christian and since many atheists trot this out I think there should be a scholarly and reasonable material on this matter at Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

*Is there some scholarly reason for turning this article about Hitler into one primarily about his religious beliefs, running on forever? Do you not know how to be concise? Might I suggest a new article for you: "Religious Beliefs of Dictators Down Through the Ages". I believe you continue to think this is a Bible wiki. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Hitler time and again cites Darwin & the TOE as the reason why he's not a Christian. And Hitler summed up Christianity in one word, "stupid." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes. That does not answer my question. This is not a Bible Wiki, so what you mentioned would be worthy one paragraph. Without "C" quotes. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Didn't the Nazis burn Darwin's books? Why would Hitler endorse the views of a man whose books he destroyed? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 13:15, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that it would be fair to say that Hitler believed in a stripped-down, brutal version of Darwinism that was far from being close to Darwin's own beliefs. It is not unsurprising that Hitler should take something and twist it to fit his own abhorrent standards. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Hitler was a Vegetarian ==

My question is why some people fail to mention Hitler was a Vegetarian and an Anti-Hunting nut.
:Cause it's not really relevant to anything?[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT) also, learn what words get capilalized in English. And sign your posts.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler, Creationism, Eugenics, and Evolution ==
(re posted from earlier)
The page seems to imply that when Hitler spoke of "favored races" he was somehow invoking evolutionary thought. Evolution theory does not place worth or lack thereof on certain genetic traits, as Hitler did. Are we trying to suggest that racism did not exist before Darwin published his writings? Let us not forget the many places in Mein Kampf where Hitler visualizes his eugenics plan as the fulfillment of '''God''''s Divine Will. And what of the following gems:
<blockquote>For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - '''Adolf Hitler''', ''Mein Kampf'', vol. ii, ch. x</blockquote>
<blockquote>From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - '''Adolf Hitler''', Hitler's Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier</blockquote>
It is not only erroneous to call Hitler an evolutionist, it is, quite frankly, insulting--to suggest a causal connection between scientific theory and genocide. As a secular conservative, I am beginning to wonder: Is Conservapedia really about promoting conservative values (financial responsibility, economic security, etc.) or about trouncing on people's beliefs? Shouldn't conservatives of all beliefs be working together instead of dividing each other in this ridiculous way?
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 22:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:If anyone is being divisive, it is you. Instead of trawling around for quotations to rip out of context, try making more substantive contributions to this site. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

The Nazi's also banned "6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)." http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:09, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:Note the qualifier. Social Darwinism does not come into that. And learn how to use apostrophes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:: That is absolutely correct, I did use an apostrophe wrong; I rewrote the sentence and the apostrophe became obsolete. I think that social Dawinism comes in to that to the entire extent that Hitiler's philosophy is based on Darwinian evolution, in that it doesn't at all. Bottom line The Nazi's didn't believe and or like the works of Darwin. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:Evolution works with environmental selection and a [b]diversity of gens[/b], something that hitler definitely did not emphasize, this article undermines the credibility of the whole encyclopedia: {{unsigned|DeSouza}}
::You're not credible, Hitler apologist. You must discount the whole Nazi ideology to believe Hitler and Darwin were not connected in any way.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:01, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

The last paragraph about Richard Dawkins words “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question" is taken totally out of context and turned upside down. Here is the full context that should be given:

When asked a question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”, his response was: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

Racism and anti-semitism existed long before Darwin's books. One only has to look at slavery in the 1700s, the First Crusade, and the Jewish expulsions from England and Spain. [[User:OneTruth]]

I've been told that Hitler banned Darwin's books. Does anyone know if this is true? --[[User:ConnieBooth|ConnieBooth]] 23:32, 18 February 2012 (EST)

== Naziism and Homosexuality ==

Wasn't Rohm (the leader of the SA) a Homosexual?----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 07:23, 25 December 2008 (EST)

I doubt it. If he was, he kept it a secret, because homosexuals were one of the groups targeted in the holocaust. - [[OneTruth]]

==Shouldn't Hitler be listed under liberal==
Logically it only makes sense. hitler was a Nazi, or national socialist. socialism is a liberal ideology. therefor it is resonible to assume that hitler was a liberal. not to mention the fact that he had numerous traits in common with liberals--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 19:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

== Proof He's An Atheist ==

What proof is there that he is an atheist? In Mein Kampf, he actually seems to be a believer. [http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerFaithGod.htm] [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 13:04, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm sure you are against classroom prayer and homeschooling as well, just like Hitler. No real Christian would ever kill millions of people, only an athiest would do that. Hitler was a socialist which is an atheistic philosophy--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 13:18, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:Maybe you should read the article on [[Evolutionary racism]] - Hitler's only religion was [[Darwinism]], and he took his [[Darwinist]] beliefs to their natural [[holocaust|conclusion]]. [[User:BobCharlton|BobCharlton]] 13:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
::SayidR, you are jumping to quite extraordinary conclusions. I'm not saying that he's a Christian, I'm saying that he said himself he believed in God. He could believe in evolution and believe in God. Many bishops do. --[[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 13:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Not so, no Christian would do such a thing because Christianity is based off of truth and love while Naziism is based off of deception and hate--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 13:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:I didn't say he was a Christian. I'm just saying that he himself believed in God, as shown in Mein Kampf. You can dodge questions like a liberal, or be a true open source conservative and see the facts. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 14:13, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Maybe YOU should remember the 90/10m rule against talk talk talk and keep your pointless arguments to your self--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 20:17, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:Okay. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 21:11, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

::I have to say, it does seem as if Hitler believed in God. NOT as a Christian. There are things that point to him being a BELIEVER, not a "true" CHRISTIAN. I'm a Christian myself and agree that if any Christian had actually read the Bible, he or she would not do something like Hitler did. I'd say that Jwilhem brought up a fine point, and Jwilhem never claimed that Hitler was a Christian. SayidR, Jwilhem was merely presenting a point. You jumped to a conclusion. Problem solved. Now, can we please get on with this discussion? [[User:VenkuTurMukan|VenkuTurMukan]] 14:33, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." Adolf Hitler
So either he was posing as a Christian trying to rally support or he was actually and atheist in disguise attempting the same. --[[User:UofGuelphStudent|UofGuelphStudent]] 00:32, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Hitler was well known to be fond of Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy. Schopenhauer, as you might know, was an atheist who thought the world was made purely by will and said such wonderful things like "life is a mistake, that should never have been." I don't see anything Christian about a man who makes use of history's greatest pessimist in his speeches... or basically everything Hitler did. Think about it, "Triumph of the Will" was a film made about Hitler's rise to power, with Hitler himself seeing his will as the triumphant victor over the world. He could literally quote entire passages of The World as Will and Representation if given the opportunity. I, and every other Christian, think Schopenhauer was incurably evil and insane and a good example of what kind of nihilism Atheists ultimately find. So Why is Hitler quoting him and reading him again and again if he was a Christian?--[[User:Speaketh|Speaketh]] (EDT)
:You make Hitler sound like an intellectual. You have a source for that? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:31, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::And secondly, Hitler may not hace beleived in the Judeo-Christian God (Jahovah), if that's how atheism is defined; but I think there is evidence Hitler's did beleive in some supernatural higher power. After the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, for instance, in a state of confusion Hitler, Goebbels, and few others were discussing what to do next. Goebbels convinced Hitler his surviving the attempt was the intervention Providence, and he had a mission to fulfil. And I don't think Goebbels was just brainstorming propaganda spin, but I may be wrong. Most of the narratives concluded Hitler felt endowed with a mission fom Providence. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:37, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, read Hitler's Private Library: The Books that Shaped His Life. He himself admitted Schopenhauer to be his largest influence. Most historians tend to overestimate the influence of Nietzsche on Hitler, but underplay Schopenhauer. To be perfectly fair, Nietzsche was no Anti-Semite and would have despised National Socialism. And while Hitler was no intellectual in the normal sense of the word, he was brilliant. Uncurably evil and insane, but absolutely brilliant. He admitted to reading The World as Will and Representation again and again as a soldier in World War I. He also used direct quotes from Schopenhauer on multiple occasions, like the Jew is the "great master of lying." Christianity and Schopenhauer's ideas pessimism and will are direct contradictions to everything about a Christian worldview. --[[User:Speaketh|Speaketh]] 13:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Look at that source: it says, "[http://books.google.com/books?id=VZY6CB_9IGAC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=hitler%2Bschopenhauer&source=bl&ots=qURoWO_7J7&sig=MfTsTr1DEUL_2T-9bsVaumVZbSc&hl=en&ei=zI1BTvf5F8qmsQKyzoCzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=hitler%2Bschopenhauer&f=false the claim becomes even less credible when Hilter could not spell the philosopher's name]." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:46, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Re: Hitler's sexuality and religion ==

I do understand that the question of Hitler's sexuality and religion requires some sophistication in terms of [http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html historiography]. Therefore, I suggest using the below framework:

"Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]

Here is a link to the Google book, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7_G2UumJCEQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Historians%27+fallacies:+toward+a+logic+of+historical+thought&source=bl&ots=uFc1bbRwU9&sig=BwjV0u_94Zt0r6Hx-dHDTXHEzZM&hl=en&ei=8IXFTKu1AoaglAeX5eEG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

David Hackett Fischer's 7 basic rules for determining the answers to historical questions:

(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

(3) An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself.

(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

(6) An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants.

(7) All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:22, 25 October 2010 (EDT)

== '''Fascism''' ==

I'm confused as why this article claims Hitler to be a socialist when he was a fascist. They are two different ideals one being right wing authoritarian and the other being a left wing economic policy. Quite different...

I suggest this be fixed as to not cause confusion.

Thanks
--[[User:UofGuelphStudent|UofGuelphStudent]] 00:40, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Try reading [[National Socialism]] first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:45, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:Or you could read this [http://www.individualism.com/?p=310], if it's any easier. Direct quotes from the "paper-hanger" himself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:58, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

:Hitler's socialism and fascism were not much different from the socialism and totalitarianism of communism. All are based on centralized control of society. Hitler (called a right-winger by the "left") was just as much a mass-murdered as the Communists.

:Please, dear contributors, remember that murderers are liars. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:29, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Homeopathy

2013-07-03T19:43:20Z

CenterK:

'''Homeopathy''' is a theory of [[alternative medicine]] which tries to treat illnesses with infinitesimal doses of the drugs that cause the same symptom as the illness. Homeopathy is based on the ideas of [[Samuel Hahnemann]], a 19th century physician who observed that some contemporary medicines evoked symptoms similar to those of the illnesses for which they were prescribed.

Homeopathy is popular in Europe and has been used by the British Royal Family.

Critics claim there is no clear evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic remedies.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml</ref> They further argue that the reported effects are equivalent to placebo.<ref>http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html</ref>

Critics say that homeopathic beliefs have no standard theory; practitioners vary widely in their prescriptions.
==History==
The term "homeopathy" was coined in the 19th century by German physician Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann.<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20080407183345/http://www.shpltd.co.uk/dean-homeopathy.pdf Archived with the Wayback machine]</ref> The concept was first thought up of when he tested upon himself cinchona bark (a purported cure for malaria at the time) and noticed that the symptoms it induced in him were similar to the symptoms of [[malaria]]. He then developed the Law of similars based on this "discovery".<ref>http://www.skylarkbooks.co.uk/Hahnemann_Biography.htm</ref> He then cataloged the effects of various substances on humans in what he called "provings." These provings, he believed, were best applied to the [[subjectivity|self]].<ref>http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/philosophy/provings.htm</ref>

Given the inertness of homeopathic remedies, Hahnemann's ideas spread widely when put up against contemporary medicinal quackery which killed patients instead of curing them.<ref>"British Medical Journal", BMJ 1 (533): 283–4, 1871 [http://www.bmj.com/content/1/533/283 Registration required for access]</ref>
= Homeopath beliefs =
==Core Principles==
#Law of similars-this posits that introducing an agent or disease producing similar symptoms as those of the patient will cure the patient<ref>http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/history.htm</ref>
#Potentisation- potentisation refers to the belief that the more a substance is diluted, the more powerful it becomes.<ref>Kayne SB (2006), Homeopathic pharmacy: theory and practice (2 ed.), Elsevier Health Sciences, pp. 53, ISBN 9780443101601.</ref>

Homeopathic remedies involve treating an illness with an infinitesimally small dose of a substance that, at bigger doses, can cause symptoms that are like those of the illness (treating 'like with like'). Homeopaths believe that the 'potency' of a remedy can be increased by serial dilutions (repetitively adding water or alcohol) combined with vigorous shaking, to the point where little or none of the original solution remains as part of the final prepared remedy.

The word 'homeopathy' was first used by the German physician Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). Hahnemann was an eminent physician and a prominent public health reformer. He believed that his new system was more humane and effective than the conventional medicine of his time<ref>Hahnemann S (1796) translated into English as "[http://www.minutus.org/library/article_read.asp?id=6 Essay on a New Principle]". Hahnemann's [http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html Organon der Heilkunst] in English translation</ref>, but it was greeted by the establishment with derision and contempt.<ref>Dean ME (2001) [http://shpltd.co.uk/dean-homeopathy.pdf Homeopathy and the progress of science] Hist Scixxxix</ref> Today, homeopathy is not an accepted part of conventional medicine, and its theories are not generally regarded as scientifically credible, but nevertheless it has more than 100,000 practitioners worldwide, and 500 million users.

Homeopathy (from the Greek hómoios (similar) and páthos (suffering)) regards diseases as 'morbid derangements of the organism', that involve some disturbance in a 'vital force.' Today, most homeopaths still believe that the fundamental causes of disease are internal and constitutional and that it is contrary to good health to suppress symptoms. They also accept the concept of 'latent Psora', the early signs of an organism’s imbalance which indicate that treatment is needed.
==Memory of Water==
One of the most crucial theories regarding the viability of homeopathy, water memory was first claimed to have been observed in 1988 by a French scientist only to be debunked two months later.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,968080,00.html</ref> The idea behind it is that water retains an imprint of whatever chemicals have been swimming in it. This would vindicate Hahnemann's Potentisation, as even when homeopathic remedies are diluted down to the final product without even a single molecule remaining in the solution, the remedy could still have an effect.
== See also ==

*[[Naturopathy]]
*[[Mind/body]]

== References ==
<references />
[[category:Alternative Medicine]]
[[category:pseudoscience]]

Homeopathy

2013-07-03T19:42:56Z

CenterK: Removal of inaccurate comparison

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2013-07-02T18:47:08Z

CenterK: Add topic

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:''Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.'' - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)
::Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the [[King James Version]] translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)

:::Douglas, I'm [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-minded about this]], but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Stalking Horse ==

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

:I have an [[open mind]] about whether Santorum was a [[stalking horse]] for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many [[conservatives]] who had rallied behind him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of [[Conservapedia proven right]]?[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim [[Conservapedia proven right]] about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters '''''perceived''''' "Santorum as the [[conservative]] alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.

::::::::What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! [[User:Insel|Insel]] 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Another case of selective reading.... ==

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "''America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. ''" So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:You seem to be focusing on the [[hearsay]] in the article, which of course would be [[inadmissible]] in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.

:Please see [[hearsay society]] for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of [[deliberate ignorance]] or [[closed-mindedness]]. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::::To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] are two seperate issues. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that ''the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas''.
:::::But his claim is ''Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.'' That's quite a difference!
:::::And calling ''the claim that mankind is causing this'' [...] ''implausible'' seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Predicted Increase in Premature Graying ==

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the [[Andy Schlafly|article about you]] that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]] page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of [[Christ]] rising from the dead does prove several theories in [[Christianity]].

:With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the [[Hearsay society]], I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that.

:::Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask [[Jesus]] for a reference after telling the parable of the [[Prodigal Son]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The [[Hearsay Society]] is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies [[logic]] and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. [[Pharisees]] used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Jesus told the [[parable]] as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the [[Prodigal Son]] then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::But ASchlafly, you yourself said that [[parable| a parable is "a fictional narrative."]] Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so.

:::::David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. [[User:JacobJ|JacobJ]] 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]]

::::::::So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as [[public schools]] might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the [[Prodigal Son]], but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

===A related issue===
A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture is one thing. A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture who led a project to re-write the Bible because parts of it did not conform to his political ideology is quite another. Then the claims of the man become self-fulfilling. Step 1: "Here is a claim about the world." Step 2: "For verification of this claim, please consult the version of the Bible that I wrote that reinforces the vision of the world that I am claiming in Step 1." Step 3: "If you have a problem with that, remember that Jesus--at least the version of him that I describe in my Bible--said things without reference to anything, and I can too. Because, like the claims of Jesus (the one in the Bible I rewrote), my claims are obvious." Does that not strike you as problematic? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 16:01, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Conservative Bible Project]] has always been dedicated to translating the original meaning of the [[Bible]] more precisely, free of [[liberal bias]] that creeps into other translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Which explains why so many noted conservative theologians have given the rewritten Bible that you produced high praises, and why so many conservative churches and denominations are using it instead of those other, more liberal versions, I guess. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 00:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

:::I think the first statement would amount to more reliance on [[hearsay]] concerning what "conservative" theologians supposedly said. And, by the way, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] was never a "rewritten Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

{{nohearsay}}
What is this?
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 15:50, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:It's a template that can be used to answer or pre-empt calls for references on pages where they aren't needed. There's also <nowiki>{{nohearsaysection}}</nowiki> for use on specific sections of pages.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is a scientist, a well-respected man and a well-known conservative (so no liberal bias involved), who has spent his career investigating premature greying in society, collecting data on the current incidence of premature greying and studying historic records on premature greying. Let us further assume - purely hypothetically - that this man has found that premature greying has not increased since, say, the time of Jesus up to now. If we don't know this man personally, should we take his results seriously or should we dismiss them and all reference to them as hearsay? What if we know him personally, maybe even as a close friend, and know him to be an honest, conservative man? Should we trust him and take his results seriously, even if they contradict what we believe to be true? At what point does information obtained from someone else stop being hearsay? You will surely say that he will not find contradicting results, but my question is not about premature greying (incidentally, I'm in my mid-40s and have been completely grey for at least ten years now). What I really want to understand is the concept of hearsay, its limits and the connection to openmindedness. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:36, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
::I'm sorry, I meant what's the point of this. References aren't bad, they prevent people from inventing their own facts.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:21, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

:::When a demand for references is used to shout down logic or obvious truths available to everyone, then that is bad. When references are used to repeat hearsay contained in the references, then that is also bad. Silly demands for references or authority were used to interfere with the logic and obvious truths in the [[Gospels]], which of course contain no references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
'::good point. However, when used correctly, references help people navigate the facts and content

::::I agree, but too often people demand references as a way of sidestepping clear logic or obvious truths, while accepting worthless references in other situations if the references reinforce their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::So, I understand that it some situations, references just aren't readily available. Maybe because an insight is either so obvious that no one's bothered to discuss it or so novel that no one's thought to discuss it. But in other situations, they are available. Lots of smart people have studied lots of obscure things. In situations where references are available, is it appropriate to use them? If I, for example, found a study investigating the age at which people go grey, would that be worth considering? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:07, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
::::::Yes, of course references are sometimes - often - wholly appropriate and very useful. They are used extensively on Conservapedia. But Wikipedia has gone beyond that and suffers from a kind of reference-mania - dismissing ''any'' statement that has no reference, and conversely often allowing any old garbage on the grounds that it does have a (questionable) citation.
:::::: See the comics [http://xkcd.com/978/ here] and [http://xkcd.com/906/ here] for two humorous commentaries on the problems caused by Wikipedia's policies (though note that other comics on that site may not be so educational - in fact the second link should come with a mild warning).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:18, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I understand, I think, your criticism of how references are used elsewhere. I'm more interested in trying to understand how you/Andy/Conservapedia want them to be used here. How do I know when it is appropriate to ask for a reference? If I ask for one and am told it is not necessary, by what criteria will we (or even better, objective others) determine who is correct? If I have a reference on some topic, how will I know whether or not it is appropriate to include in an article? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:31, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

== Opportunities for improvement ==

I recently stumbled upon this article after a link to it was featured on the main page. After reviewing the article and it's subsequent talk page discussion, I believe I have found a few areas that could stand some attention.

# '''Ambiguousness of predictions''' - Many of the predictions are vague and offer little in the way of an objectively measurable outcome. To be effective, predictions should be as specific as possible, with indisputable results.
# '''Links to predictions''' - Very few of the list items reference the article (and exact edit) on Conservapedia where the actual prediction was made. Critics of the project could easily claim that predictions were being made after-the-fact once the final outcome was known. Citing the specific edit where the prediction was made would preemptively silence such criticism.
# '''"Liberal claptrap" responses''' - Like the predictions themselves, only a minuscule amount of the alleged liberal uproar is actually documented.
# '''The results''' - Surprisingly many of the results do not link to any external source, where the reader can review the material and reach their own conclusion about the accuracy of the prediction.

--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)

:You're welcome to add more references, but the predictions and outcomes are so clear and well-known that even more references are hardly necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:10, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Item on Armstrong is somewhat ridiculous ==

Lance Armstrong was stripped from his titles in August 2012, so adding him in September 2012 to the list of overrated sport-starts doesn't take a visionary... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:46, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:May seem obvious now, but as you can see from the reference there was objection in September 2012 to including him in the [[Overrated Sports Stars]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::I remember this well, as I reinserted the entry. So there were two editors ([[User:Wonders]] and [[User:AugustO]]) who thought that he was overrated, and other Conservapedians disagreed: you have enough convenient predictions to cover any outcome.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::No, because the deniers were not "Conservapedians" in many meaningful sense. Conservapedians said he was overrated, and non-Conservapedians disagreed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:08, 15 January 2013 (EST)

*the article on [[Lance Armstrong]] was created in '''Sep 2007'''. The first reference to drug abuse was inserted in '''Jan 2012'''
*In '''Sep 2007''' wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong&oldid=156195303#Allegations_of_drug_use article on Armstrong] already had a long section named '''Allegations of drug use'''
So even if you claim that Conservapedia was proven right, it came quite late to the party... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:34, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::"Predicting" that Armstrong is overrated in September is a bit like "predicting" that Obama would win the election ... on the 7th of November. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:12, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September. There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:47, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September.'' Evidence?
:::::''There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.'' Link?
:::::There are those thinks called ''facts''... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:57, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Liberal companies including a beer company and Nike continued to endorse Armstrong for months after September. Now, do you need a citation for that too???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::Just citations which show that [[Anheuser Bush]] and [[Nike]] are liberal companies... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::Oh please ... is it really necessary to provide a citation that Nike and a beer company are liberal???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Yes. In my country, beer companies belong to the most conservative companies imaginable. And [[Anheuser Bush]] doesn't strike me as a kind of micro-brewery.
:::::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:32, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Both Nike and Budd dropped him, presumably after looking in detail at their legal options. Besides I cannot imagine how you would even begin to argue that Nike is a "liberal" company - they are one of the biggest exploiters of cheap labour in the world; they are famous for having extremely lax safety standards for employees, and being in favour of countries that reduce them as much as possible. I'm not familiar with the beer company, but given their size I doubt they would meet any sensible definition of liberal. As for "I'm sure there are atheist websites who endorse him still"; that is a meaningless statement unless you actually cite one. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:07, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::It's difficult for me to imagine any corporation as "liberal." When the primary motivator is profit, groups and individuals tend to go conservative. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:41, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Big corporations have never been friendly to the conservative movement. Except for the union issue, big corporations tend to support liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 16 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::I think the opposite is the case (take, for example, the membership of ALEC). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:14, 16 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::(EC)And tax policy, and health and safety, and welfare, and discrimination laws, and minimum wages, and healthcare, and political finance reform and etc etc ad nauseum. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:18, 16 January 2013 (EST)
Rupert Murdock a liberal? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:58, 16 January 2013 (EST)

: Rupert Murdoch is whatever will further his business interests. He has at various times supported both sides of politics when doing so helps his various business interests. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:13, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:: ''The Australian, "The Times of London", "The Wall Street Journal"'', those rubbish tabloids in Britain. New York and in the various state capitals in Australia - "liberal" papers, Dvergne? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:38, 16 January 2013 (EST)

This is like shooting fish in a barrel guys - just follow the money. In 2012, Anheuser Busch donated [https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00034488 55% of its PAC money to Republicans, 45% to Democrats]. Since 2003, it has donated [http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=207 45% of its money to Republicans, and 38% to Democrats]. In 2012, Nike donated [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 63% to Republicans, 37% to Democrats]. Since 2004, Nike has given [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 43% to Republicans, 40% to Democrats]. Although neither are 'overwhelmingly GOP', like, for example, [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00236489 Koch Industries] (98% Republican, 2% Democrat), if the Nike and Anheuser Busch numbers were election results, they would be called a "landslide" for Republicans. The vast majority of corporations will be found to be like this - it's in their interest to support less regulation, lower business taxes, etc, and they almost all line up to support conservatives. [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 12:27, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:The donations by corporations to Republicans are typically to '''''liberal''''' Republicans, some of whom are more liberal than many Democrats.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::But Anheuser-Busch is a member of ALEC, at least according to [http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/cied_35-day_mailing_2011_annual_meeting%20New%20Orleans.pdf this source]. I don't think they would belong to ALEC if they were liberal. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:13, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::Not to mention that Anheuser-Busch donated to Andy's favorite candidate [[Todd Akin]]. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:32, 18 January 2013 (EST)

== Relay ==

I read [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/02/130208-super-bowl-blackout-cause/ the National Geographic article], and it appears that the argument is whether the relay mechanically failed or whether it was improperly set. Nothing suggests that relay or its use was not at fault, and certainly nothing suggests that energy rationing of any sort contributed to the outage. Please fix this. Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 21:25, 9 February 2013 (EST)

:A low setting on a relay (or fuse) would result from guidelines based on rationing energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::Relays almost never fail, and stadiums almost never go dark. You can't prove that a relay didn't cause a blackout by saying that relays almost never fail, just as liberals can't prove that God didn't create the world because worlds almost never are created. --[[User:Praymond|Praymond]] 11:30, 27 May 2013 (EDT)
::There are several other, more plausible reasons. It could have been to prevent larger-scale blackouts due to interruption in the power coming into the stadium. It could have been to reduce the risk of fire (the same kind of reason why circuit breakers in your home trip). Or, the setting may have been too low simply due to human error. The details should be sorted out soon through investigation. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:31, 9 February 2013 (EST)

== Media bullying ==

A simple google search shows that the term "media bullying" was already in use before Conservapedia purportedly coined it. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:48, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

:Were prior uses elsewhere of the term "[[media bullying]]" in the same rich meaning as the usage here?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
::You claim (and literally wrote) that Conservapedia coined the ''term''. However, judging from your reply, what you probably intended to write was that Conservapedia merely coined the highly particular ''usage'' of the term. That is an essential difference. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:13, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

== Explained that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ==

The article cited as proof that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer mentions nothing about abortions, nothing about ''Roe V Wade'' being connected with the increase of cancer in young women. Quote: "Why more young women would be presenting with tumors that have already spread to bone, brain, lungs, or other distant sites ''isn't clear, they noted. Rising obesity rates, changes in alcohol and tobacco use, and genetics are possible causes, according to Dr. Thomas Julian, director of surgical oncology at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh."
''

If you want to find a connection, or have some proof, I recommend adding it, but this is not that proof. Doesn't even come close. It just so happens that the studies started a few years after ''Roe V Wade'' was decided. There is not even a casual connection between the two mentioned in this article. [[User:Vyselink|Vyselink]] 15:03, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:Newspaper articles often do have the problem of [[liberal denial]], but are cited here for the facts they contain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

==Tamerlan Tsarnaev==
Does anyone else feel like this might be jumping the gun a little?? "Tamerlan Tsarnaev '''probably''' murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA '''likely''' proves it." The words "probably" and "likely" are not synonyms for "proven right"... especially not when the [[Conservapedia proven right#cite note-56|only citation provided]] is a link back to the [[Main Page|same statement]] (without any external source at the time of this posting) on the main page of this very website. I honestly haven't followed the murder case at all and have no idea what is going on with it, but the information provided here is far from convincing to me. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:24, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
:I stand corrected, there is now a [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0511/Tsarnaev-2011-murders-Boston-bombing-brothers-also-could-be-linked-to-earlier-deaths source] provided on the main page... however, it very clearly states that the evidence only points to them being in the area on the day of the murder and circumstantial at best. Like I said above, I haven't been following the case so I don't know all the details, I just feel it's a little premature to claim CP was proven right on this. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:33, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't see any "liberal bias" or right-vs-left in any of this. All Americans believe that the Boston Marathon bombing, carjacking, police shootouts etc. were horrible behavior. It is an opportunity for the nation to pull together to respond to this. We all want the police and the criminal justice system to work effectively to identify all related crimes and any possible co-conspirators. America demands a complete and professional investigation. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:13, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

:::Within days the DNA evidence from the [[9/11]] triple-murder was compared with the DNA of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and they likely matched. (If they didn't match, then authorities would surely say so.) '''''Yet [[liberal denial]] about the DNA match continues'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:57, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

==Proposed Enhancements==
It seems my recent edit to this page was more controversial than I intended. I wanted to apologize to the project for the problems that I caused--it was never my intent to remove substantive material. I believe the lay out of the chart can be enhanced, and the following is my proposed methodology. I will not endeavor to make these changes without approval. Each of these phases would be enacted in separate edits with significant time in between them to facilitate review.
 -First: Standardization of the dates. Currently, there is no standard. Some dates are seasons while others are ranges, and those with specific dates are displayed with no specific style. My proposed standardization is as follows--for dates: (Full Month) (Day) (Year). for those that are currently seasons or ranges, I will search for the first relevant edit and use that as the date. I will provide a citation.
 -Second: Citation of Claims. After completing phase one, my intent is to revisit the table and provide internal citations to all predication made.
 -Third: Citation of Results. After completing phase two, my intent is to revisit the table and provide citations to all results.
 -Fourth: Sortability of Table. After completing phase three, my intent is to edit the formatting to create a sort-able table.

I believe these enhancements will improve the visual appeal of the table. Further, I believe these enhancements embody an important principle: credit where credit is due. Conservapedia has often made bold predictions and has been proven right time and time again. Although it is improper to brag, we ought to take pride in, and document, the project's success.

Again, my apologies for any complications my previous edits caused. [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

:I'm fine with the addition of citations, and with standardizing the form for dates is good too. I don't see how sortability will be a problem. The reason I reverted prior edits to this entry was that content changed. For example, and I don't know if this was your edit, but a correct statement about Manning throwing interceptions in the final key game was changed to incorrectly state that Tebow had done so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

::As I work through adding dates and internal citations, I have noticed that the archive page of In The News ends in December 2011. Were the months January-December 2012 archived? I ask because searching the archives is simpler than my current method of searching through revision histories. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 09:06, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

:::I think 2012 is archived here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

::::Ah, great! I was looking at the general archives page here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives] Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:55, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

==Variability of the Speed of Light==

I suggest deleting the point about the speed of light being variable. The article sited does not in fact say this. It states that the speed of light is constant but that space is not the complete vacuum previously thought. Thus the speed of light is slightly slower traveling through space as it is in any non vacuum. [[User:CenterK|CenterK]] 01:53, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Global warming

2013-07-01T06:16:34Z

CenterK: /* Other planets */ cosmic rays

Merge with [[Science of global warming]]? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

good idea

== Let's put our thinking caps on ==
You guys are right that there isn't a widespread popular consensus for global climate warming change, but as a conservative I feel like we should try to figure out what is really going on instead of going with the current popular trends. There must be a reason that the National Academy of Science -a non partisan organization- concluded that "a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems", and that 97% of global scientists studying the issue have built a consensus around this idea. While I am still not convinced, I think we need to take a second look at the evidence instead of flatly denying global warming's existence based on the tiny fraction of the world's climate we see in our immediate vicinity. Looking outside and seeing snow and -50 degree temperatures tells us nothing about global climate trends, no matter how easy it might be to lampoon Al Gore when this happens. I do hate that guy though. 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record, no matter how cold your backyard is. As conservatives, I think we need to move toward accepting that there is overwhelming evidence for global warming (or climate change, whatever we want to call it). However, we should advocate market based solutions, like big time tax cuts for American clean energy companies and people who innovate, instead of the crap and trade the libs are trying to shove down our throats! let's do what reagan did, and that is recognize environmental problems and advance free market policy to solve them! common sense people.
[[User:Moderate|Moderate]] , 18 November 2010

:I think the problem is that [[leftists]] have intertwined the term "global warming" with their evidence-lacking [[anthropogenic global warming theory]]; the two terms are incorrectly used together and many times interpreted as meaning the same thing, but they should be separate from each other. Evidence and current data prove that [[ClimateGate#Global_Warming_Facts|global warming has not occurred since 1995]], although warming periods have happened before - these temporary periods of global warming are not due to man-made changes. These are scientific findings based on data which [[Professor]] [[Phil Jones]] has admitted as fact. Global warming may have happened in the past, but there is simply no scientific data present today that suggests humans are the cause of these natural periods of [[global warming]] and [[global cooling]]. The anthropogenic global warming theory does, however, present a great opportunity for [[progressives]] to force [[big government]] policies onto the American people; although, it is my interpretation that such policies are [[unconstitutional]] because allowing the government to enforce this environmental agenda via [[cap and trade]] is not inline with the principles of [[limited government]]. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 14:04, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::However much we despise liberals and the cap and trade bill, we must also consider the actual merits of the issue. Even if global warming is false--a point I am by no means convinced of--many of the policies that would fight it are also good for the economy, such as tax cuts for clean, sustainable energy companies, including nuclear, as well as targeted tax policy to combat pollutants that we know harm the environment and our health, like smog and smoke from factories. Ending our dependence on fossil fuels should not be dismissed because of disbelief in the notion of global warming, in fact, it should be embraced by conservatives for several reasons. 1. It takes the main source of revenue away from middle-east dictators ($700 B per year according to Sen. McCain), 2. It would help America create new industries and again lead the world in manufacturing cutting edge goods, and 3. It would eliminate the cloud of awful smog sitting above my head right now! Maybe I would be able to see some stars at night for once!. Do you agree that we should pursue a renewable energy, market-based agenda regardless of whatever global warming garbage the liberals try to manufacture?[[User:Moderate|Moderate]] 17:10, 19 November 2010 (PST)

:Many centrists are now convinced of Global Frauding. Climategate showed how deep the lies really are. [[User:Teapartyman]]

::You know, it's funny. Very recently, I was on Wikipedia, and I went to the "scientific opinion on climate change" page. It was incredibly biased. it said "the scientific opinion on climate change is that the earth is unequivocally warming", and it didn't even mention anyone who didn't even mention any deniers. That's what I call biased. I wrestled with them for ages, but I couldn't get them to change it, because they were so attached to their ideas. Then, I came here, expecting to find an unbiased site. To my horror, this page is just as biased as Wikipedia, only in the opposite direction. Why is it that all of these encyclopedia's have to be so radically leftist or rightist as to be completely biased? Why can't this page be UNBIASED, and show each side equally? If people think that only showing the RADICAL conservative opinion on climate change is going to make people take this site seriously, they're definitely wrong. -Cybersaur

Regarding the claim of global warming being a hoax. The definition of hoax is a deliberate deception. The citations after the the articles claims of global warming being a hoax do not in fact support that conclusion. The emails of one scientist do not imply that tens of thousands of climate researchers are deliberately in cahoots to deceive the public. Though the science is woefully incomplete there is no evidence that the research is a hoax. I believe the article would be more credible the word hoax was deleted. Any feedback? [[User:CenterK|CenterK]] 02:04, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

== Other planets ==

I just wanted to explain why I deleted the material that was in place on this matter and why I disagree with its reinstatement, rather than getting into an edit war.

Yes there are measurements from other planets that go back several years but that does not constitute a continuous measurement period. The temporal and spatial coverage of such measurements varies each time and is naturally very limited in this respect. Measurements taken relatively close together in time have shown stark differences that cannot simply be said to be climate change but rather are natural short time-scale variations in time and space as you would find if you compared the temperature in the Sahara and the Antarctic on different days and with each other. The data that does exist has not been sufficient for scientists to produce running averages with anything like the reliability of those used for earth. Long-term trends are built using ''these'' figures not simply single temperature measurements from irregular times and places. As such it is not possible to make any accurate claims about climate change on these planets within the past few decades based on the available data. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)

:Congrats RobertWDP, I love when you follow the rules like that, we want respectable contributors as yourself. I feel that you are knowledgeable on the climate subject. If you say the data is inconclusive (other planets) and therefore cannot be used. I am not convinced. Show me studies that solar system planets have no bearing on Earth climate models, then cite references as proof.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 22:25, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::I shall try to elaborate on points Robert has already made. We do not have ice core samples from Neptune or Pluto. We don't have fossil data from Mars or Titan. What data we do have is at best a starting point for further analysis. On Earth we have much more data, and we also have the ability to carry out almost any experiment. As Robert said, what data we do have about the climates of other planets is absolutely useless for establishing a model of any kind. It could be that Mars is undergoing a typical cycle of climate change that is unique to its environment. We don't know. It could be that Neptune is warming because more gasses than normal are collapsing to the center of the planet and releasing heat caused by the friction of the particles rubbing against each other as they fall. We don't know. Premises don't spring from nothing, so we can't make an argument out of facts that we don't have.

::It is also a bad idea to compare the climates of gas giants with rocky planets: the differences are so extreme that it is hardly worth going over.

::I'll end by saying this: If common argument is that we don't really understand the Earth's climate, then how are we to know it any better through comparison of environments that we know almost nothing about? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 00:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::I'll add that if ALL our solar system is getting warm at the same time, insufficient evidence? I believe that's the data that was presented, was at least cited. I am all for the truth in this matter. If you have a source, add it but don't delete the point that is countered.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 00:09, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::::If the entire solar system was warming at the same rate in the same instance (now) then you would have a very compelling case that human impact is far less than originally believed. However, we currently lack those facts if they in fact exist at all. Gas giants are not analogous to rocky planets; reasons for their climate change(s) is an entirely different matter for science to investigate. Also consider that the outer planets receive very little solar energy; the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality. Mars could be warming because it is unable to deflect any appreciable amount of solar energy it receives. We have an atmosphere, and a magnetic shield of sorts to mitigate the influx of solar energy, so if we could take humanity out of the equation, Earth would likely warm at a much lower rate than Mars or any other planets if just due to solar activity alone.

::::The truth is though, that we just don't know. There's no credible way to link the climates of different planets in the fashion this section does. Gaseous planets obviously can't be compared to our own, and the conditions inherent to the other planets open up so many variables that we have no hope of meaningfully comparing them to our own in the near (or even distant) future.

::::What I mean by all this is that you don't really need a cited source (though I accept where the burden appropriately lies) to realize that you can't compare apples to oranges.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 00:31, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::''"the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality"'' I am disagreeing but I don't know what I am disagreeing about. Sunlight on Pluto is insufficient for solar temperature fluctuations? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 00:51, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::Consider the distances involved: Pluto is so far away that the sun would at best appear as a very bright star if you stood on the surface and tried to find it. Granted, Pluto isn't so far away that it receives no solar energy whatsoever, but the amount (inverse square law) is so negligible that you can't ascribe significant weight to it. In fact, Pluto only warms to the point of having a minimal atmosphere after it's orbit changes by almost 3 billion miles.

:::::I don't want to run into 90/10 problems, but again I gotta ask: how can we compare Pluto to the Earth, or even Mars to the Earth when they are so different that they are barely similar?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 01:05, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::The sun is gigantic! [http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/sun_size_distance.html] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:15, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::::::And what's your point?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::The sun is everything, all encompassing, all powerful and to say comparing planets in our solar system are like comparing apples with oranges, I say hooey! The IPCC hasn't taken into account sun irradiation, solar spots, and a host of other issues. Their findings are the heart of Global Warming Politics. It has already been disproved no matter how many agree to its findings. As YECs correctly point out, you can't just throw seven apples on the floor, all at once, perfectly spaced. Yet, God aligned the planets in our system that way. God controls the destiny of Earth, not man. God tells us it is a sin to worry. Leave mother nature for God to decide. As said in 'Platoon', "We all gotta die sometime." Bot capture guy says what? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)

So are you telling me that the most extensively studied body in the sky, has somehow been omitted from all studies related to global warming despite the very necessary fact that the sun is probably the most important part of our climate (Being the driving force and all...)? I mean not to sound condescending, but the sun has been factored into every single climate model period because without the sun we don't really have a climate. The verdict? The sun is not the primary causative agent behind global warming. If the sun's output was so high that it was warming Pluto at (for the sake of argument) the same rate as Earth, we'd be dead. So the outer planets no, don't indicate anything about the climates of the inner planets unless it is understood that the outer planets (especially the gas giants) have some analogous variables as the inner planets do.

Also, please note that the IPCC is usually criticized for /understating/ global warming, but it's predictions are still "There is GW, humans activity is the cause." The more nuanced questions of "by how much..." "by what specific behavior..." have yet to be answered, no one disagrees there, but we can't answer those questions if we must continually go back and reassert that what we already know to be true is true.

Also what is perfectly spaced about the planets? Pluto went (back when it was a planet, though I still personally consider it such) from 9th farther to 8th farthest planet depending on when you looked at it. Uranus is helplessly tilted on its side. Saturn's rings are also note stable. What about any of this is perfection? If your idea of perfection is rooted in the tradition of Platonic forms, then I could see your point, but then again always assigning God as the reason why X occurred when we don't currently know only sets up God to fail in the long run when we DO figure it out. If God exists, and I assume he does, he does not exist in such a way that we can view him through a telescope.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 15:18, 5 March 2009 (EST)

:This is a typical argument, used by liberals to trick the ignorant. I don't know whether you are a trickster or one of the tricked, but it doesn't matter.

:The sun's output consists of energy and matter. The energy that heats the earth is infrared light, which is what McDonald's uses to keep the French Fries warm. The matter is called cosmic rays, but these are actually charged particles; they move slower than the speed of light.

:Variations in the '''energy output''' of the sun have little effect on the earth's climate, but variations in cosmic rays have a significant effect.

:The difference between a sincere person and a liberal liar depends on whether he'll stop saying something after he finds out that it is not true. So, I'll ask you: if someone can prove to your satisfaction that variations in solar output, i.e., [[cosmic rays]], have a greater effect on the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, will you stop saying otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:20, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

Sorry Ed but you've got this one wrong. Cosmic Rays do not come from the sun. They come from far beyond the solar system and thus are called "cosmic" rather than solar rays. They are emitted by extremely energetic phenomena such as supernovas. The suns emissions actually block cosmic rays from striking earth to some degree. The hypothesis that cosmic rays influence climate is mostly put forth by researcher Henrik Svensmark, but his conclusions have not yet been accepted by the mainstream. Perhaps in the future the link between cosmic rays and climate will be confirmed, but at this point it's more speculative [[User:CenterK|CenterK]] 02:16, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

== Media claims ==

Again, I shall bring this issue here rather than risk reverting an admin.

Jpatt, you state quite blatantly that Boykoff is biased towards global warming. I have to ask at this point (this is actually a question not an attempt at an insult in case of any apparent ambiguity) if you have read any of his research or actually know where his grants come from? If the answer is no to the latter in particular then such comments as you have added to the article would amount to libel, which it would be virtually impossible for you to defend against. I am familiar with his work and so hopefully can be of some use here. Boykoff's work is not actually so much research on the science of climate change itself. He actually studies how climate change (amongst other things) is portrayed and perceived by politicians, the public, and the media, not to mention the actual climate scientists. As such the funding for such research which generally involves looking at freely available material, mostly newspaper articles, is pretty negligible, especially when compared to actual climate studies that I assume you are referring to. Although I admit I cannot state for certain the actual source of the funding, I would be quite certain it is from a source that specifically funds media research and not actual climate studies. As such, Boykoff is actually studying issues such as possible bias regarding the issues of climate science, especially in politics and reporting and even mentions media bias on numerous occasions. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:09, 27 February 2009 (EST)
:Further, I would request that if my points above are not adequately addressed (i.e. the removal of libellous claims about an individual) then I would instead request that you simply allow me to remove all reference to the person's work rather than have it and him portrayed in such a way. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:15, 27 February 2009 (EST)
::Please note that I have now done this. There should be little argument not only due to my points above but also as I added the references in the first place. I am disappointed at te attitude that has been taken by some. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 19:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

== Quotation ==

The grammar and punctuation in the quotation from Obama in the article could be improved.

== Generally ==

The ecological movement generally has been described as a white attempt to stop non-whites'
industrialising, a middle-class attempt to stop working-class whites' industrialising,
an attempt to conjure up salaries for millions of scientists or an emotional
substitute for failed socialism.

== Not only liberals ==

Edited the section of liberal claims of consensus. There are more groupos than liberals that are claiming consensus on this issue. Moreover, that information seems old, maybe the whole article should be refreshed.

Also, took away the quotation marks from "consesus", otherwise it looks stupid.~~

No only liberals, make the claim that there is consensus. They claim that there is consensus, with other groups but that doesn't make it so. Also, it's better to have quotation marks since then we emphasize that there isn't any real consensus. Finally your spelling, could be improved.

==Hackers evidence scam ==

Working on other stuff myself, but thought this may be note worthy for an editor, though its depth and impact is yet to be ascertained:

[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html ''Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam'']

"One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO."

Also [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM ''The Dog Ate Global Warming Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?''][[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:39, 21 November 2009 (EST)

==list of New York Times articles dating back to 1855 addressing the global warming and cooling==

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

Here or on the controversy page?[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:47, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:Good question, but not an urgent one. We need to start separating the [[science]] of global warming from the [[politics]]. The "[[greenhouse effect]]" is real, but the threat of a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is overhyped, and [[politicized science]] has contaminated the educational process.

:We need to give our series of [[global warming]]-related articles an overhaul. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:55, 22 November 2009 (EST)

::This an excellent point. I haven't gone through it fully to check every source, but I did notice the source on the consensus of climatologists about anthropogenic global warming is from 1992, and the results of current polls are almost a full 180 degree change from the ones in the 1992 poll.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
:::I'll post the links and such here, so I could hopefully get an edit green-lighted. Heres an article on the survey http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm and hers the survey itself http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

== Science related sections should be placed first... ==

There's really no reason for the sections regarding the 'politics' and 'liberal claims of consensus' to come first. It seems appropriate that all of the scientific sections should come first in an article about a scientific issue.

Also, while I understand that many global warming supporters have a liberal inclination, doesn't this seem a bit biased: "'''Liberal''' claims of consensus"?[[User:JPope|JPope]] 13:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:No bias on our part. First, it is mostly liberals who claim there is a [[scientific consensus]] on whether global warming is more natural or artificial. Secord, the "claim of consensus" is entirely manufactured, contradicting all surveys actually conducted of climate scientists. Less than 1/3 of scientists polled accept any of the key ideas of the [[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:21, 6 February 2010 (EST)

==Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick==
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/ Good picture that should be public.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

==Intro==

Cut from intro:

*into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of the world by changing the ability of heat to escape the atmosphere.

*Some gases attributed with causing this effect are produced by industrial and power plants, while many others come from natural phenomena. In addition to atmospheric gas content, many other factors control the earth's temperature, which has its own pattern of heating and cooling.

*While many climate scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, some computer models designed to predict long term trends fail to predict recent short-term cooling that the Earth is experiencing. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009]</ref> Because 1998 was the year of El Nino, a natural phenomenon that occurs intermittently and causes the year in which it occurs to be anomalously hot, the relation of that year to longer trends is unclear. As temperatures have been falling since 1998, increasing doubt is being cast on the validity of global warming claims.

We need to distinguish between:
#a period of [[global warming period|rising world air temperatures]]
#a scientific theory about [[global warming theory|what causes the above]]
#what activists mean when they say things like, "Global warming is real"

The first is easy enough. It happens when air temperatures go up.

The second requires explaining all the various major theories explaining this. Liberals hate this, because this gives something for conservatives to compare with reality (see [[independent review]]).

The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)

<references/>

==Issues of independent review==

Cut from intro:

:... leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims

First off, [[peer review]] is not the same as [[independent review]]. Journal editors have a system of [[peer review]] that they use to help them decide whether or not to publish an article. However, that decision can be affected by the bias of the editor or publisher, such as choosing only to publish articles that support a given theory.

[[Independent review]], on the other hand, is not related to any specific journal or editor. It is the ongoing process whereby all the scientists in the world constantly look at each other's work. If they find errors, they say so right away - whether in private or in public. [[Science]] advances when scientists use elements of the [[scientific method]] such as ensuring that every [[hypothesis]] is [[falsifiable]] (see also [[reproducible results]]).

The entire problem with the last 10 or 20 years of "global warming" advocacy is that contrary views have been suppressed (see [[intelligent design]] and "[[Expelled]]"). An abuse of the [[peer review]] system has undermined [[independent review]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)

==Might have to lock the article again==

Someone added a clearly incorrect "fact", with attribution to a "History Encyclopedia" which turned out to be Wikipedia in disguise:

: If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6 °F during the 20th Century. [http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia

Whoever did this should not be allowed to contribute to this article any more. F = Fahrenheit, and C = Centigrade. The IPCC conclusion was for centigrade (or [[Celsius]] as non-Americans like to say). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)

:Hey, Ed....What do you think of moving this to Global Warming Conspiracy? Just an idea, in the interest of accuracy. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)

No, TK, we will always need an article on [[global warming]], because it is "real" - in the sense of occurring naturally over and over throughout history. Every [[ice age]] has been followed by an [[interglacial]] period when temperatures go back up again.

We must separate the [[independent review|independently reviewed]] science from the politically motivated distortions, which is a confusing and complicated task. Science is hard enough, but when you have 90% of the mainstream media controlled by liberal "[[advocacy journalists]]" the job is ten times as hard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:03, 6 February 2010 (EST)
:Splitting the article between complementary "Climate Change" and "Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy" articles (Or Man-caused? Anthropogenic is just too long) might help. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:08, 6 February 2010 (EST)

::I don't like the term [[climate change]], if it's nothing more than a euphemism for [[AGW]]. About 4 years ago, when I almost had the pro-AGW pov-pushers stopped at Wikipedia, they decided to change the terminology. This had the desired effect of confusing everybody and bought them more time.

::There are only two things going on here:
::#Scientific theories about what makes the earth's atmosphere get warmer and colder
::#Attempts to promote treaties and taxes, based on these theories

::We don't need a lot of different articles. "[[Global warming]]" should be the main science article - split into sub-articles for ease of writing; "[[Global warming controversy]]" should be about the political clash between the two main sides: liberals and their ilk who support [[AGW]] theory because they want the [[Kyoto Protocol]], [[carbon tax]]es, etc. & conservatives along with a few brave independent scientists who oppose the [[AGW]] because it's contradicted by the facts.

==Warmest year or decade==

Various claims have been made that this or that recent year is the "warmest" in recent memory. Then, this claim is used to argue that the [[AGW|global warming theory]] must be true. This is in the same category as claiming that there has never been a time when there was open, ice-free water at the [[North Pole]], or that the polar bear population is decreasing, or that some famous glacier or snow-capped mountain has less ice.

None of these claims - even if true - would have any bearing on whether human beings are heating up the atmosphere too much (see [[AGW|global warming theory]]). But shouldn't liberals admit their theory is nothing but hot air, if any of these claims are disproven? Of course not, the public can't concentrate on the science long enough! The liberals just quickly change the subject to another claim.

Anyway, this article would probably be a good place to rebut all these claims. Who wants to help? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 6 February 2010 (EST)

==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==

I know that many of us are skeptical about global warming and that's great, we should cover all the reasons for skepticism in this article. But many Conservatives do believe in Global Warming. I'm one of them. Newt Gingrich is another. So I don't see this as a thing where anyone who believes NASA is a liberal. I want lower taxes, I want smaller government, but I think we can lower pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil at the same time and both are good for our country. Lindsay graham said as much himself, and I think McCain did too.

I think we need to balance this article, not between libs and Conservatives, but between Conservatives who are convinced about global warming and Conservatives who aren't.[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 14:32, 11 February 2010 (EST)
:You're absolutely right that not all conservatives believe in global warming. (And I'm surprised you didn't cite Margaret Thatcher next to Gingrich!) And I don't think anybody can be against reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I believe everybody agrees: the less reliant we are on the Middle East, the better.
:But the recent ClimateGate scandal should increase your doubt somewhat, I'd hope, about global warming. More and more, evidence is coming forward which demonstrates that this has all been either an outright fraud or an extraordinary exaggeration of regular and natural climate cycles.
:Nevertheless, if you would like to propose any large-scale edits to the article, you're welcome to! Post your suggested additional section here, for review by the most senior administrators, and perhaps they will be added to the article. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:38, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Jacob, I understand why you might think that and I respect your opinion. I, personally, think that the day we put a man on the moon was about the best proof ever that this is the best country that's ever been. I love our space program, I love our science and technology, and I believe that science comes up with the best answers about things like this.

There was a scam at the institute in England and the IVPP is exaggerated, you are right. Gore is a dope, no question. But NASA has been taking thousands of satellite and weather station measurements and they say the CO2 level is going up, the earth is warming, and that it's caused by the extra CO2 we are burning. It's millions of tons of coal and oil and natural gas we burn every year. I understand about interglacial periods and so on, but even then, even if it was natural, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere would be our best option for saving our agriculture and avoiding a lot of trouble.

Even Rick Warren, the guy who wrote the book that my wife gave me that made me accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, agrees that we need to do something about it.[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 14:59, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:I agree with JacobB. I think any claims made prior to [[ClimateGate]] on Global warming should be invalid until/unless more recent, similar claims are again said by the same politicians who previously thought Global warming was caused by humans. It's one thing to agree with what the "consensus" of scientists have claimed over the last decade as possibly true, but it doesn't seem fair or right to suggest that the same people still have the same opinion of the consensus after it's found their "science" could be less than accurate. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)
::Mpauline, please! I'm also a huge supporter of the space program. So was President Bush, and now Obama's killing the budget for it! We clearly agree on many issues, and if you're conservative you'll find you have common ground with basically everybody here. When it comes to climate change, we could argue all day - but let's not! Instead, put on this talk page below the section you wish to add to the article, and people with far more authority than me will review your proposed edit, and we'll reach an outcome that we're all pleased with. You know the old saying, "You cut, I chose?" for reaching compromise? Well, first you have to cut, ie, show us your proposed edit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:07, 11 February 2010 (EST)
You got it Jacob. Thanks. I'll put something up soon. Derek, that's a fair point, but the new NASA report came out after the Climategate scandal. They were making exaggerated claims over there in England, but I believe that our American capabilities are way better. NOAA and NASA's new measurements say the oceans got hotter in the last ten years than they've ever measured.[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 15:31, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:::NASA and NOAA won't do any better, given the current administration's penchant for buying into man being the cause of climate change. The Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly, over thousands of years. That is natural, put in motion by God, and if someone believes they can do anything to change those cooling and warming periods, they are nuts. Simply put, if it is God's plan that we cease to exist, that is it. If His plan is for us to survive He will be the cause of mankind's salvation, not man. If one accepted what atheists believe to be true, I still would say man's puny attempts to change forces on a scale millions of times greater than us would be doomed to failure...if we all went off fossil fuels tomorrow, perhaps we would succeed in slowing such warming by a few years. What then? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:52, 11 February 2010 (EST)

OK, TK, I respect that, and many other Conservatives believe that. But that is not what all Conservatives believe.
Myself and many other Evangelical Christians believe that God very well might expect us to clean up our own mess. I assure you that NOAA and NASA know full well about natural cycles in the climate. They know full well that there was no ice at the poles in the Paleocene. They have taken natural cycles into account, but they say the CO2 levels and temperatures are going up much faster than they do during natural cycles, and they know this from air bubbles trapped in ice cores. JacobB above is right, President Bush supported NASA and NOAA just like Reagan did.
And, you know, I know that liberals believe in global warming, and I don't like agreeing with them, but even they can be right about one thing. I mean, Al Gore probably believes that 2+2=4, and I'm not going to say the answer is 5 just to disagree with him on every single thing.
I know I won't convince you and I'm already convinced by teh evidence I've seen. We both have good points. This article should reflect the range of opinion among Conservatives on the subject, don't you think?[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 17:12, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:You completely mistake what I believe. We do agree that presenting the facts is important, however. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)

==Past speculation==
Article is locked, but this could be included in this section: “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot..”
“Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers. . . all point to a radical change in climate conditions and . . . unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone . . . Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones . . . while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.” - Washington Post, Nov. 2, '''1922''', based upon a report from the National Weather Review. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/] [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:06, 3 March 2010 (EST)

== NASA Antarctic warming map ==

The first picture a reader sees in this article is [[Composite antarctic NASA.jpg]], a map showing Antarctica with colors indicating temperature changes. The page where the image originally was, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36736, shows a scale, in which even pale red represents a (slight) increase in temperature. The article uses the picture with a caption including the words "Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right". Just from looking at the picture, it's obvious that even the east half is mostly red.

The picture doesn't seem especially relevant to the first section of the article, anyway.

The article might be better off using another picture like [[Las-vegas-snow-storm-12-2008-christmas.jpg]]. It's a lot easier to see that picture's meaning in a quick glance, and we could still use the Antarctica picture lower in the article for another purpose.

I don't believe that man-made global warming is happening either, but this picture isn't the first one I'd choose for an article debunking the overblown claims.
[[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 19:20, 6 January 2011 (EST)

== I have not studied the global warming issue, but it is going to be a hard sell in America ==

I have not been following the man made global warming issue in recent weeks (post Climategate) and what the possibly effects could be, but I can tell you that it is going to be a hard sell in America because: America has a down economy that seems will continue to get worse plus Obama's re-election is a long shot (Republican candidates are opposed to supporting the global warming issue), Americans prefer big cars and big houses, America has a strong oil lobby, has public schools which are doing a lousy job of teaching math/science, plus Americans value personal choice more than most nations. I don't see much happening on this issue over the next 5 years in terms of any changes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Apparently we have 50 months left[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/sep/30/50-months-climate-change]. Can't see it making much difference though. And even if it did in most countries the US and China don't seem very positive. I suppose it is just time to be thankful that we don't live in Kiribati. (unless of course we do, in which case just hope we can emigrate somewhere) [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:35, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

==Beneficial effects of global warming ?==
Why is there a section about beneficial effects of global warming ? Am I the only one who find it odd ?
There is 2 options:
* The most plausible is that global warming is a huge hoax, therefore, there is absolutely no interest to speak about any possible beneficial effects
* The other option is that global warming is real. In this case, the few beneficial effects are completely shadowed by the threat of sea level rise which may threaten millions of human lives.
--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:12, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:Those are not the only 2 options. It is possible that global warming is not a hoax, but is also not [[anthropogenic global warming|anthropogenic]]. It is also possible that global warming is real, but its effects will not be nearly as devastating as liberal scientists claim. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 18:30, 10 January 2012 (EST)
::I agree that these are not the only 2 options but that does not change the point. If global warming is real but not anthropogenic, we are in my 2nd case. If global warming is not as devastating as liberal scientists claim, we are either in the 1st case (if there is not sea level rise, I think we won't notice the difference) or in the 2nd (if we notice the difference, there is a huge probability that sea level will rise).--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:43, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:::The two cases I gave are not mutually exclusive. But you probably are correct, that none of the beneficial effects mentioned in the article can occur without severe negative effects as well. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 18:53, 10 January 2012 (EST)
::::I think that having a section to talk about benefits could be useful because (I'm pretty sure) it is true about the lengthened growing season and it also seems likely that less people would die from freezing to death. However, I do agree that it is strange not to include anything about the drawbacks, because that is almost an accepted concept in our current culture; i.e. most people equate global warming with negative effects. I would like to point out that the sea level rise, even according to the liberals, won't happen until at least 100 years from now. I propose that the benefits of global warming section be merged with the Reported effects of Climate Change section, so we can keep it all together. Also, I think the entire Reported effects of Climate Change section is one of those subtle vandalism thingys, usually written by a liberal to make Conservapedia look bad. I didn't want to delete it in case someone was actually trying to be serious. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:50, 2 February 2012 (EST)

Your question sounds like a rhetorical one, i.e., an assertion that warmer weather isn't beneficial. Please write an article section on the benefits and drawback of warmer weather. For example, how does it affect crop growth or human health? Do more or fewer people die in warmer climates than in colder climates. (Why do retirees tend to move south say, from, New York or Boston to Florida? Are they knowledgeable or ignorant about the connection between warmth and longevity?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:44, 31 December 2012 (EST)

:Ed, such an article section would be quite lengthy. While retirees may well move to Florida to find a more salubrious climate, we must also take into account the vastly-increased incidence of certain diseases in tropical climates. Yellow Fever, for example, is all but unheard-of in northerly climates in this day and age, but still kills many people every year in parts of Africa and South America. This is, in large part, because the weather never grows cold enough to kill off the mosquitoes that spread the disease. Given the many factors that would need to be taken into account, I fear that such a section, properly researched, would dwarf the rest of the article. Perhaps a separate article would be more appropriate? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:57, 31 December 2012 (EST)

== Sunspot Activity ==
I want to delete the section on sunspot activity, as it is misguided and certainly wrong. The article is dated and the prediction made by the scientist, Willie Soon, that the Earth would start to cool after 2009 did not come to pass (2010 was the hottest year ever recorded). On 1/30/12, NASA released an article <ref> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/nsfc-eeb013012.php </ref> which refutes the claims made by Willie Soon. Of course, I don't want to remove it if some people still think it could be still useful unless every agrees that it should be removed.

Basically, the deal is that Dr. Soon thought sunspots contributed significantly to global temperature. Here are links to NASA's website showing average global temperature <ref> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ </ref> and sunspot activity <ref> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/ </ref>. You can see that the two do not correlate, especially in the last couple years. Strikingly, sunspot activity is at the lowest its been in about 100 years, and the global temperature is the highest its been in at least 100 years. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 17:57, 1 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>

== Facts ==

I found a good website with some facts about the GW hoax, don't know if it will pass as a good source but deserves a good look...<ref>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html</ref>User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 12:20, 31 December 2012 (EST)
{{reflist}}

== Bias ==

I put this at the top of the page under a different title, but nobody pays attention to that part:

You know, it's funny. Very recently, I was on Wikipedia, and I went to the "scientific opinion on climate change" page. It was incredibly biased. it said "the scientific opinion on climate change is that the earth is unequivocally warming", and it didn't even mention anyone who didn't even mention any deniers. That's what I call biased. I wrestled with them for ages, but I couldn't get them to change it, because they were so attached to their ideas. Then, I came here, expecting to find an unbiased site. To my horror, this page is just as biased as Wikipedia, only in the opposite direction. Why is it that all of these encyclopedia's have to be so radically leftist or rightist as to be completely biased? Why can't this page be UNBIASED, and show each side equally? If people think that only showing the RADICAL conservative opinion on climate change is going to make people take this site seriously, they're definitely wrong. -Cybersaur

PS: I am in no way trying to defend global warming ideology. I too think it is ridiculous.

==Marcott graph==

Can someone add a section on the Marcott reconstruction, including his statement that it "cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes"?

And has anyone else besides me noticed that this admission contradicts the NY Times analysis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:38, 7 April 2013 (EDT)

== Science. ==

I would just like to show you these two. I don't know about you, but these seem pretty accurate.

[http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ Here.]
[http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ And here.]

You can claim politics and yell libtard, but that wont help change those two.

Talk:Global warming

2013-07-01T06:04:55Z

CenterK: /* Let's put our thinking caps on */

Merge with [[Science of global warming]]? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

good idea

== Let's put our thinking caps on ==
You guys are right that there isn't a widespread popular consensus for global climate warming change, but as a conservative I feel like we should try to figure out what is really going on instead of going with the current popular trends. There must be a reason that the National Academy of Science -a non partisan organization- concluded that "a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems", and that 97% of global scientists studying the issue have built a consensus around this idea. While I am still not convinced, I think we need to take a second look at the evidence instead of flatly denying global warming's existence based on the tiny fraction of the world's climate we see in our immediate vicinity. Looking outside and seeing snow and -50 degree temperatures tells us nothing about global climate trends, no matter how easy it might be to lampoon Al Gore when this happens. I do hate that guy though. 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record, no matter how cold your backyard is. As conservatives, I think we need to move toward accepting that there is overwhelming evidence for global warming (or climate change, whatever we want to call it). However, we should advocate market based solutions, like big time tax cuts for American clean energy companies and people who innovate, instead of the crap and trade the libs are trying to shove down our throats! let's do what reagan did, and that is recognize environmental problems and advance free market policy to solve them! common sense people.
[[User:Moderate|Moderate]] , 18 November 2010

:I think the problem is that [[leftists]] have intertwined the term "global warming" with their evidence-lacking [[anthropogenic global warming theory]]; the two terms are incorrectly used together and many times interpreted as meaning the same thing, but they should be separate from each other. Evidence and current data prove that [[ClimateGate#Global_Warming_Facts|global warming has not occurred since 1995]], although warming periods have happened before - these temporary periods of global warming are not due to man-made changes. These are scientific findings based on data which [[Professor]] [[Phil Jones]] has admitted as fact. Global warming may have happened in the past, but there is simply no scientific data present today that suggests humans are the cause of these natural periods of [[global warming]] and [[global cooling]]. The anthropogenic global warming theory does, however, present a great opportunity for [[progressives]] to force [[big government]] policies onto the American people; although, it is my interpretation that such policies are [[unconstitutional]] because allowing the government to enforce this environmental agenda via [[cap and trade]] is not inline with the principles of [[limited government]]. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 14:04, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::However much we despise liberals and the cap and trade bill, we must also consider the actual merits of the issue. Even if global warming is false--a point I am by no means convinced of--many of the policies that would fight it are also good for the economy, such as tax cuts for clean, sustainable energy companies, including nuclear, as well as targeted tax policy to combat pollutants that we know harm the environment and our health, like smog and smoke from factories. Ending our dependence on fossil fuels should not be dismissed because of disbelief in the notion of global warming, in fact, it should be embraced by conservatives for several reasons. 1. It takes the main source of revenue away from middle-east dictators ($700 B per year according to Sen. McCain), 2. It would help America create new industries and again lead the world in manufacturing cutting edge goods, and 3. It would eliminate the cloud of awful smog sitting above my head right now! Maybe I would be able to see some stars at night for once!. Do you agree that we should pursue a renewable energy, market-based agenda regardless of whatever global warming garbage the liberals try to manufacture?[[User:Moderate|Moderate]] 17:10, 19 November 2010 (PST)

:Many centrists are now convinced of Global Frauding. Climategate showed how deep the lies really are. [[User:Teapartyman]]

::You know, it's funny. Very recently, I was on Wikipedia, and I went to the "scientific opinion on climate change" page. It was incredibly biased. it said "the scientific opinion on climate change is that the earth is unequivocally warming", and it didn't even mention anyone who didn't even mention any deniers. That's what I call biased. I wrestled with them for ages, but I couldn't get them to change it, because they were so attached to their ideas. Then, I came here, expecting to find an unbiased site. To my horror, this page is just as biased as Wikipedia, only in the opposite direction. Why is it that all of these encyclopedia's have to be so radically leftist or rightist as to be completely biased? Why can't this page be UNBIASED, and show each side equally? If people think that only showing the RADICAL conservative opinion on climate change is going to make people take this site seriously, they're definitely wrong. -Cybersaur

Regarding the claim of global warming being a hoax. The definition of hoax is a deliberate deception. The citations after the the articles claims of global warming being a hoax do not in fact support that conclusion. The emails of one scientist do not imply that tens of thousands of climate researchers are deliberately in cahoots to deceive the public. Though the science is woefully incomplete there is no evidence that the research is a hoax. I believe the article would be more credible the word hoax was deleted. Any feedback? [[User:CenterK|CenterK]] 02:04, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

== Other planets ==

I just wanted to explain why I deleted the material that was in place on this matter and why I disagree with its reinstatement, rather than getting into an edit war.

Yes there are measurements from other planets that go back several years but that does not constitute a continuous measurement period. The temporal and spatial coverage of such measurements varies each time and is naturally very limited in this respect. Measurements taken relatively close together in time have shown stark differences that cannot simply be said to be climate change but rather are natural short time-scale variations in time and space as you would find if you compared the temperature in the Sahara and the Antarctic on different days and with each other. The data that does exist has not been sufficient for scientists to produce running averages with anything like the reliability of those used for earth. Long-term trends are built using ''these'' figures not simply single temperature measurements from irregular times and places. As such it is not possible to make any accurate claims about climate change on these planets within the past few decades based on the available data. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)

:Congrats RobertWDP, I love when you follow the rules like that, we want respectable contributors as yourself. I feel that you are knowledgeable on the climate subject. If you say the data is inconclusive (other planets) and therefore cannot be used. I am not convinced. Show me studies that solar system planets have no bearing on Earth climate models, then cite references as proof.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 22:25, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::I shall try to elaborate on points Robert has already made. We do not have ice core samples from Neptune or Pluto. We don't have fossil data from Mars or Titan. What data we do have is at best a starting point for further analysis. On Earth we have much more data, and we also have the ability to carry out almost any experiment. As Robert said, what data we do have about the climates of other planets is absolutely useless for establishing a model of any kind. It could be that Mars is undergoing a typical cycle of climate change that is unique to its environment. We don't know. It could be that Neptune is warming because more gasses than normal are collapsing to the center of the planet and releasing heat caused by the friction of the particles rubbing against each other as they fall. We don't know. Premises don't spring from nothing, so we can't make an argument out of facts that we don't have.

::It is also a bad idea to compare the climates of gas giants with rocky planets: the differences are so extreme that it is hardly worth going over.

::I'll end by saying this: If common argument is that we don't really understand the Earth's climate, then how are we to know it any better through comparison of environments that we know almost nothing about? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 00:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::I'll add that if ALL our solar system is getting warm at the same time, insufficient evidence? I believe that's the data that was presented, was at least cited. I am all for the truth in this matter. If you have a source, add it but don't delete the point that is countered.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 00:09, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::::If the entire solar system was warming at the same rate in the same instance (now) then you would have a very compelling case that human impact is far less than originally believed. However, we currently lack those facts if they in fact exist at all. Gas giants are not analogous to rocky planets; reasons for their climate change(s) is an entirely different matter for science to investigate. Also consider that the outer planets receive very little solar energy; the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality. Mars could be warming because it is unable to deflect any appreciable amount of solar energy it receives. We have an atmosphere, and a magnetic shield of sorts to mitigate the influx of solar energy, so if we could take humanity out of the equation, Earth would likely warm at a much lower rate than Mars or any other planets if just due to solar activity alone.

::::The truth is though, that we just don't know. There's no credible way to link the climates of different planets in the fashion this section does. Gaseous planets obviously can't be compared to our own, and the conditions inherent to the other planets open up so many variables that we have no hope of meaningfully comparing them to our own in the near (or even distant) future.

::::What I mean by all this is that you don't really need a cited source (though I accept where the burden appropriately lies) to realize that you can't compare apples to oranges.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 00:31, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::''"the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality"'' I am disagreeing but I don't know what I am disagreeing about. Sunlight on Pluto is insufficient for solar temperature fluctuations? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 00:51, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::Consider the distances involved: Pluto is so far away that the sun would at best appear as a very bright star if you stood on the surface and tried to find it. Granted, Pluto isn't so far away that it receives no solar energy whatsoever, but the amount (inverse square law) is so negligible that you can't ascribe significant weight to it. In fact, Pluto only warms to the point of having a minimal atmosphere after it's orbit changes by almost 3 billion miles.

:::::I don't want to run into 90/10 problems, but again I gotta ask: how can we compare Pluto to the Earth, or even Mars to the Earth when they are so different that they are barely similar?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 01:05, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::The sun is gigantic! [http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/sun_size_distance.html] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:15, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::::::And what's your point?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::The sun is everything, all encompassing, all powerful and to say comparing planets in our solar system are like comparing apples with oranges, I say hooey! The IPCC hasn't taken into account sun irradiation, solar spots, and a host of other issues. Their findings are the heart of Global Warming Politics. It has already been disproved no matter how many agree to its findings. As YECs correctly point out, you can't just throw seven apples on the floor, all at once, perfectly spaced. Yet, God aligned the planets in our system that way. God controls the destiny of Earth, not man. God tells us it is a sin to worry. Leave mother nature for God to decide. As said in 'Platoon', "We all gotta die sometime." Bot capture guy says what? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)

So are you telling me that the most extensively studied body in the sky, has somehow been omitted from all studies related to global warming despite the very necessary fact that the sun is probably the most important part of our climate (Being the driving force and all...)? I mean not to sound condescending, but the sun has been factored into every single climate model period because without the sun we don't really have a climate. The verdict? The sun is not the primary causative agent behind global warming. If the sun's output was so high that it was warming Pluto at (for the sake of argument) the same rate as Earth, we'd be dead. So the outer planets no, don't indicate anything about the climates of the inner planets unless it is understood that the outer planets (especially the gas giants) have some analogous variables as the inner planets do.

Also, please note that the IPCC is usually criticized for /understating/ global warming, but it's predictions are still "There is GW, humans activity is the cause." The more nuanced questions of "by how much..." "by what specific behavior..." have yet to be answered, no one disagrees there, but we can't answer those questions if we must continually go back and reassert that what we already know to be true is true.

Also what is perfectly spaced about the planets? Pluto went (back when it was a planet, though I still personally consider it such) from 9th farther to 8th farthest planet depending on when you looked at it. Uranus is helplessly tilted on its side. Saturn's rings are also note stable. What about any of this is perfection? If your idea of perfection is rooted in the tradition of Platonic forms, then I could see your point, but then again always assigning God as the reason why X occurred when we don't currently know only sets up God to fail in the long run when we DO figure it out. If God exists, and I assume he does, he does not exist in such a way that we can view him through a telescope.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 15:18, 5 March 2009 (EST)

:This is a typical argument, used by liberals to trick the ignorant. I don't know whether you are a trickster or one of the tricked, but it doesn't matter.

:The sun's output consists of energy and matter. The energy that heats the earth is infrared light, which is what McDonald's uses to keep the French Fries warm. The matter is called cosmic rays, but these are actually charged particles; they move slower than the speed of light.

:Variations in the '''energy output''' of the sun have little effect on the earth's climate, but variations in cosmic rays have a significant effect.

:The difference between a sincere person and a liberal liar depends on whether he'll stop saying something after he finds out that it is not true. So, I'll ask you: if someone can prove to your satisfaction that variations in solar output, i.e., [[cosmic rays]], have a greater effect on the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, will you stop saying otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:20, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

== Media claims ==

Again, I shall bring this issue here rather than risk reverting an admin.

Jpatt, you state quite blatantly that Boykoff is biased towards global warming. I have to ask at this point (this is actually a question not an attempt at an insult in case of any apparent ambiguity) if you have read any of his research or actually know where his grants come from? If the answer is no to the latter in particular then such comments as you have added to the article would amount to libel, which it would be virtually impossible for you to defend against. I am familiar with his work and so hopefully can be of some use here. Boykoff's work is not actually so much research on the science of climate change itself. He actually studies how climate change (amongst other things) is portrayed and perceived by politicians, the public, and the media, not to mention the actual climate scientists. As such the funding for such research which generally involves looking at freely available material, mostly newspaper articles, is pretty negligible, especially when compared to actual climate studies that I assume you are referring to. Although I admit I cannot state for certain the actual source of the funding, I would be quite certain it is from a source that specifically funds media research and not actual climate studies. As such, Boykoff is actually studying issues such as possible bias regarding the issues of climate science, especially in politics and reporting and even mentions media bias on numerous occasions. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:09, 27 February 2009 (EST)
:Further, I would request that if my points above are not adequately addressed (i.e. the removal of libellous claims about an individual) then I would instead request that you simply allow me to remove all reference to the person's work rather than have it and him portrayed in such a way. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:15, 27 February 2009 (EST)
::Please note that I have now done this. There should be little argument not only due to my points above but also as I added the references in the first place. I am disappointed at te attitude that has been taken by some. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 19:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

== Quotation ==

The grammar and punctuation in the quotation from Obama in the article could be improved.

== Generally ==

The ecological movement generally has been described as a white attempt to stop non-whites'
industrialising, a middle-class attempt to stop working-class whites' industrialising,
an attempt to conjure up salaries for millions of scientists or an emotional
substitute for failed socialism.

== Not only liberals ==

Edited the section of liberal claims of consensus. There are more groupos than liberals that are claiming consensus on this issue. Moreover, that information seems old, maybe the whole article should be refreshed.

Also, took away the quotation marks from "consesus", otherwise it looks stupid.~~

No only liberals, make the claim that there is consensus. They claim that there is consensus, with other groups but that doesn't make it so. Also, it's better to have quotation marks since then we emphasize that there isn't any real consensus. Finally your spelling, could be improved.

==Hackers evidence scam ==

Working on other stuff myself, but thought this may be note worthy for an editor, though its depth and impact is yet to be ascertained:

[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html ''Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam'']

"One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO."

Also [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM ''The Dog Ate Global Warming Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?''][[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:39, 21 November 2009 (EST)

==list of New York Times articles dating back to 1855 addressing the global warming and cooling==

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

Here or on the controversy page?[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:47, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:Good question, but not an urgent one. We need to start separating the [[science]] of global warming from the [[politics]]. The "[[greenhouse effect]]" is real, but the threat of a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is overhyped, and [[politicized science]] has contaminated the educational process.

:We need to give our series of [[global warming]]-related articles an overhaul. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:55, 22 November 2009 (EST)

::This an excellent point. I haven't gone through it fully to check every source, but I did notice the source on the consensus of climatologists about anthropogenic global warming is from 1992, and the results of current polls are almost a full 180 degree change from the ones in the 1992 poll.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
:::I'll post the links and such here, so I could hopefully get an edit green-lighted. Heres an article on the survey http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm and hers the survey itself http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

== Science related sections should be placed first... ==

There's really no reason for the sections regarding the 'politics' and 'liberal claims of consensus' to come first. It seems appropriate that all of the scientific sections should come first in an article about a scientific issue.

Also, while I understand that many global warming supporters have a liberal inclination, doesn't this seem a bit biased: "'''Liberal''' claims of consensus"?[[User:JPope|JPope]] 13:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:No bias on our part. First, it is mostly liberals who claim there is a [[scientific consensus]] on whether global warming is more natural or artificial. Secord, the "claim of consensus" is entirely manufactured, contradicting all surveys actually conducted of climate scientists. Less than 1/3 of scientists polled accept any of the key ideas of the [[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:21, 6 February 2010 (EST)

==Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick==
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/ Good picture that should be public.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

==Intro==

Cut from intro:

*into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of the world by changing the ability of heat to escape the atmosphere.

*Some gases attributed with causing this effect are produced by industrial and power plants, while many others come from natural phenomena. In addition to atmospheric gas content, many other factors control the earth's temperature, which has its own pattern of heating and cooling.

*While many climate scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, some computer models designed to predict long term trends fail to predict recent short-term cooling that the Earth is experiencing. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009]</ref> Because 1998 was the year of El Nino, a natural phenomenon that occurs intermittently and causes the year in which it occurs to be anomalously hot, the relation of that year to longer trends is unclear. As temperatures have been falling since 1998, increasing doubt is being cast on the validity of global warming claims.

We need to distinguish between:
#a period of [[global warming period|rising world air temperatures]]
#a scientific theory about [[global warming theory|what causes the above]]
#what activists mean when they say things like, "Global warming is real"

The first is easy enough. It happens when air temperatures go up.

The second requires explaining all the various major theories explaining this. Liberals hate this, because this gives something for conservatives to compare with reality (see [[independent review]]).

The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)

<references/>

==Issues of independent review==

Cut from intro:

:... leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims

First off, [[peer review]] is not the same as [[independent review]]. Journal editors have a system of [[peer review]] that they use to help them decide whether or not to publish an article. However, that decision can be affected by the bias of the editor or publisher, such as choosing only to publish articles that support a given theory.

[[Independent review]], on the other hand, is not related to any specific journal or editor. It is the ongoing process whereby all the scientists in the world constantly look at each other's work. If they find errors, they say so right away - whether in private or in public. [[Science]] advances when scientists use elements of the [[scientific method]] such as ensuring that every [[hypothesis]] is [[falsifiable]] (see also [[reproducible results]]).

The entire problem with the last 10 or 20 years of "global warming" advocacy is that contrary views have been suppressed (see [[intelligent design]] and "[[Expelled]]"). An abuse of the [[peer review]] system has undermined [[independent review]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)

==Might have to lock the article again==

Someone added a clearly incorrect "fact", with attribution to a "History Encyclopedia" which turned out to be Wikipedia in disguise:

: If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6 °F during the 20th Century. [http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia

Whoever did this should not be allowed to contribute to this article any more. F = Fahrenheit, and C = Centigrade. The IPCC conclusion was for centigrade (or [[Celsius]] as non-Americans like to say). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)

:Hey, Ed....What do you think of moving this to Global Warming Conspiracy? Just an idea, in the interest of accuracy. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)

No, TK, we will always need an article on [[global warming]], because it is "real" - in the sense of occurring naturally over and over throughout history. Every [[ice age]] has been followed by an [[interglacial]] period when temperatures go back up again.

We must separate the [[independent review|independently reviewed]] science from the politically motivated distortions, which is a confusing and complicated task. Science is hard enough, but when you have 90% of the mainstream media controlled by liberal "[[advocacy journalists]]" the job is ten times as hard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:03, 6 February 2010 (EST)
:Splitting the article between complementary "Climate Change" and "Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy" articles (Or Man-caused? Anthropogenic is just too long) might help. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:08, 6 February 2010 (EST)

::I don't like the term [[climate change]], if it's nothing more than a euphemism for [[AGW]]. About 4 years ago, when I almost had the pro-AGW pov-pushers stopped at Wikipedia, they decided to change the terminology. This had the desired effect of confusing everybody and bought them more time.

::There are only two things going on here:
::#Scientific theories about what makes the earth's atmosphere get warmer and colder
::#Attempts to promote treaties and taxes, based on these theories

::We don't need a lot of different articles. "[[Global warming]]" should be the main science article - split into sub-articles for ease of writing; "[[Global warming controversy]]" should be about the political clash between the two main sides: liberals and their ilk who support [[AGW]] theory because they want the [[Kyoto Protocol]], [[carbon tax]]es, etc. & conservatives along with a few brave independent scientists who oppose the [[AGW]] because it's contradicted by the facts.

==Warmest year or decade==

Various claims have been made that this or that recent year is the "warmest" in recent memory. Then, this claim is used to argue that the [[AGW|global warming theory]] must be true. This is in the same category as claiming that there has never been a time when there was open, ice-free water at the [[North Pole]], or that the polar bear population is decreasing, or that some famous glacier or snow-capped mountain has less ice.

None of these claims - even if true - would have any bearing on whether human beings are heating up the atmosphere too much (see [[AGW|global warming theory]]). But shouldn't liberals admit their theory is nothing but hot air, if any of these claims are disproven? Of course not, the public can't concentrate on the science long enough! The liberals just quickly change the subject to another claim.

Anyway, this article would probably be a good place to rebut all these claims. Who wants to help? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 6 February 2010 (EST)

==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==

I know that many of us are skeptical about global warming and that's great, we should cover all the reasons for skepticism in this article. But many Conservatives do believe in Global Warming. I'm one of them. Newt Gingrich is another. So I don't see this as a thing where anyone who believes NASA is a liberal. I want lower taxes, I want smaller government, but I think we can lower pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil at the same time and both are good for our country. Lindsay graham said as much himself, and I think McCain did too.

I think we need to balance this article, not between libs and Conservatives, but between Conservatives who are convinced about global warming and Conservatives who aren't.[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 14:32, 11 February 2010 (EST)
:You're absolutely right that not all conservatives believe in global warming. (And I'm surprised you didn't cite Margaret Thatcher next to Gingrich!) And I don't think anybody can be against reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I believe everybody agrees: the less reliant we are on the Middle East, the better.
:But the recent ClimateGate scandal should increase your doubt somewhat, I'd hope, about global warming. More and more, evidence is coming forward which demonstrates that this has all been either an outright fraud or an extraordinary exaggeration of regular and natural climate cycles.
:Nevertheless, if you would like to propose any large-scale edits to the article, you're welcome to! Post your suggested additional section here, for review by the most senior administrators, and perhaps they will be added to the article. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:38, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Jacob, I understand why you might think that and I respect your opinion. I, personally, think that the day we put a man on the moon was about the best proof ever that this is the best country that's ever been. I love our space program, I love our science and technology, and I believe that science comes up with the best answers about things like this.

There was a scam at the institute in England and the IVPP is exaggerated, you are right. Gore is a dope, no question. But NASA has been taking thousands of satellite and weather station measurements and they say the CO2 level is going up, the earth is warming, and that it's caused by the extra CO2 we are burning. It's millions of tons of coal and oil and natural gas we burn every year. I understand about interglacial periods and so on, but even then, even if it was natural, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere would be our best option for saving our agriculture and avoiding a lot of trouble.

Even Rick Warren, the guy who wrote the book that my wife gave me that made me accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, agrees that we need to do something about it.[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 14:59, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:I agree with JacobB. I think any claims made prior to [[ClimateGate]] on Global warming should be invalid until/unless more recent, similar claims are again said by the same politicians who previously thought Global warming was caused by humans. It's one thing to agree with what the "consensus" of scientists have claimed over the last decade as possibly true, but it doesn't seem fair or right to suggest that the same people still have the same opinion of the consensus after it's found their "science" could be less than accurate. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)
::Mpauline, please! I'm also a huge supporter of the space program. So was President Bush, and now Obama's killing the budget for it! We clearly agree on many issues, and if you're conservative you'll find you have common ground with basically everybody here. When it comes to climate change, we could argue all day - but let's not! Instead, put on this talk page below the section you wish to add to the article, and people with far more authority than me will review your proposed edit, and we'll reach an outcome that we're all pleased with. You know the old saying, "You cut, I chose?" for reaching compromise? Well, first you have to cut, ie, show us your proposed edit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:07, 11 February 2010 (EST)
You got it Jacob. Thanks. I'll put something up soon. Derek, that's a fair point, but the new NASA report came out after the Climategate scandal. They were making exaggerated claims over there in England, but I believe that our American capabilities are way better. NOAA and NASA's new measurements say the oceans got hotter in the last ten years than they've ever measured.[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 15:31, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:::NASA and NOAA won't do any better, given the current administration's penchant for buying into man being the cause of climate change. The Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly, over thousands of years. That is natural, put in motion by God, and if someone believes they can do anything to change those cooling and warming periods, they are nuts. Simply put, if it is God's plan that we cease to exist, that is it. If His plan is for us to survive He will be the cause of mankind's salvation, not man. If one accepted what atheists believe to be true, I still would say man's puny attempts to change forces on a scale millions of times greater than us would be doomed to failure...if we all went off fossil fuels tomorrow, perhaps we would succeed in slowing such warming by a few years. What then? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:52, 11 February 2010 (EST)

OK, TK, I respect that, and many other Conservatives believe that. But that is not what all Conservatives believe.
Myself and many other Evangelical Christians believe that God very well might expect us to clean up our own mess. I assure you that NOAA and NASA know full well about natural cycles in the climate. They know full well that there was no ice at the poles in the Paleocene. They have taken natural cycles into account, but they say the CO2 levels and temperatures are going up much faster than they do during natural cycles, and they know this from air bubbles trapped in ice cores. JacobB above is right, President Bush supported NASA and NOAA just like Reagan did.
And, you know, I know that liberals believe in global warming, and I don't like agreeing with them, but even they can be right about one thing. I mean, Al Gore probably believes that 2+2=4, and I'm not going to say the answer is 5 just to disagree with him on every single thing.
I know I won't convince you and I'm already convinced by teh evidence I've seen. We both have good points. This article should reflect the range of opinion among Conservatives on the subject, don't you think?[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 17:12, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:You completely mistake what I believe. We do agree that presenting the facts is important, however. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)

==Past speculation==
Article is locked, but this could be included in this section: “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot..”
“Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers. . . all point to a radical change in climate conditions and . . . unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone . . . Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones . . . while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.” - Washington Post, Nov. 2, '''1922''', based upon a report from the National Weather Review. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/] [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:06, 3 March 2010 (EST)

== NASA Antarctic warming map ==

The first picture a reader sees in this article is [[Composite antarctic NASA.jpg]], a map showing Antarctica with colors indicating temperature changes. The page where the image originally was, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36736, shows a scale, in which even pale red represents a (slight) increase in temperature. The article uses the picture with a caption including the words "Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right". Just from looking at the picture, it's obvious that even the east half is mostly red.

The picture doesn't seem especially relevant to the first section of the article, anyway.

The article might be better off using another picture like [[Las-vegas-snow-storm-12-2008-christmas.jpg]]. It's a lot easier to see that picture's meaning in a quick glance, and we could still use the Antarctica picture lower in the article for another purpose.

I don't believe that man-made global warming is happening either, but this picture isn't the first one I'd choose for an article debunking the overblown claims.
[[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 19:20, 6 January 2011 (EST)

== I have not studied the global warming issue, but it is going to be a hard sell in America ==

I have not been following the man made global warming issue in recent weeks (post Climategate) and what the possibly effects could be, but I can tell you that it is going to be a hard sell in America because: America has a down economy that seems will continue to get worse plus Obama's re-election is a long shot (Republican candidates are opposed to supporting the global warming issue), Americans prefer big cars and big houses, America has a strong oil lobby, has public schools which are doing a lousy job of teaching math/science, plus Americans value personal choice more than most nations. I don't see much happening on this issue over the next 5 years in terms of any changes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Apparently we have 50 months left[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/sep/30/50-months-climate-change]. Can't see it making much difference though. And even if it did in most countries the US and China don't seem very positive. I suppose it is just time to be thankful that we don't live in Kiribati. (unless of course we do, in which case just hope we can emigrate somewhere) [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:35, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

==Beneficial effects of global warming ?==
Why is there a section about beneficial effects of global warming ? Am I the only one who find it odd ?
There is 2 options:
* The most plausible is that global warming is a huge hoax, therefore, there is absolutely no interest to speak about any possible beneficial effects
* The other option is that global warming is real. In this case, the few beneficial effects are completely shadowed by the threat of sea level rise which may threaten millions of human lives.
--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:12, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:Those are not the only 2 options. It is possible that global warming is not a hoax, but is also not [[anthropogenic global warming|anthropogenic]]. It is also possible that global warming is real, but its effects will not be nearly as devastating as liberal scientists claim. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 18:30, 10 January 2012 (EST)
::I agree that these are not the only 2 options but that does not change the point. If global warming is real but not anthropogenic, we are in my 2nd case. If global warming is not as devastating as liberal scientists claim, we are either in the 1st case (if there is not sea level rise, I think we won't notice the difference) or in the 2nd (if we notice the difference, there is a huge probability that sea level will rise).--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:43, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:::The two cases I gave are not mutually exclusive. But you probably are correct, that none of the beneficial effects mentioned in the article can occur without severe negative effects as well. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 18:53, 10 January 2012 (EST)
::::I think that having a section to talk about benefits could be useful because (I'm pretty sure) it is true about the lengthened growing season and it also seems likely that less people would die from freezing to death. However, I do agree that it is strange not to include anything about the drawbacks, because that is almost an accepted concept in our current culture; i.e. most people equate global warming with negative effects. I would like to point out that the sea level rise, even according to the liberals, won't happen until at least 100 years from now. I propose that the benefits of global warming section be merged with the Reported effects of Climate Change section, so we can keep it all together. Also, I think the entire Reported effects of Climate Change section is one of those subtle vandalism thingys, usually written by a liberal to make Conservapedia look bad. I didn't want to delete it in case someone was actually trying to be serious. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:50, 2 February 2012 (EST)

Your question sounds like a rhetorical one, i.e., an assertion that warmer weather isn't beneficial. Please write an article section on the benefits and drawback of warmer weather. For example, how does it affect crop growth or human health? Do more or fewer people die in warmer climates than in colder climates. (Why do retirees tend to move south say, from, New York or Boston to Florida? Are they knowledgeable or ignorant about the connection between warmth and longevity?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:44, 31 December 2012 (EST)

:Ed, such an article section would be quite lengthy. While retirees may well move to Florida to find a more salubrious climate, we must also take into account the vastly-increased incidence of certain diseases in tropical climates. Yellow Fever, for example, is all but unheard-of in northerly climates in this day and age, but still kills many people every year in parts of Africa and South America. This is, in large part, because the weather never grows cold enough to kill off the mosquitoes that spread the disease. Given the many factors that would need to be taken into account, I fear that such a section, properly researched, would dwarf the rest of the article. Perhaps a separate article would be more appropriate? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:57, 31 December 2012 (EST)

== Sunspot Activity ==
I want to delete the section on sunspot activity, as it is misguided and certainly wrong. The article is dated and the prediction made by the scientist, Willie Soon, that the Earth would start to cool after 2009 did not come to pass (2010 was the hottest year ever recorded). On 1/30/12, NASA released an article <ref> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/nsfc-eeb013012.php </ref> which refutes the claims made by Willie Soon. Of course, I don't want to remove it if some people still think it could be still useful unless every agrees that it should be removed.

Basically, the deal is that Dr. Soon thought sunspots contributed significantly to global temperature. Here are links to NASA's website showing average global temperature <ref> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ </ref> and sunspot activity <ref> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/ </ref>. You can see that the two do not correlate, especially in the last couple years. Strikingly, sunspot activity is at the lowest its been in about 100 years, and the global temperature is the highest its been in at least 100 years. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 17:57, 1 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>

== Facts ==

I found a good website with some facts about the GW hoax, don't know if it will pass as a good source but deserves a good look...<ref>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html</ref>User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 12:20, 31 December 2012 (EST)
{{reflist}}

== Bias ==

I put this at the top of the page under a different title, but nobody pays attention to that part:

You know, it's funny. Very recently, I was on Wikipedia, and I went to the "scientific opinion on climate change" page. It was incredibly biased. it said "the scientific opinion on climate change is that the earth is unequivocally warming", and it didn't even mention anyone who didn't even mention any deniers. That's what I call biased. I wrestled with them for ages, but I couldn't get them to change it, because they were so attached to their ideas. Then, I came here, expecting to find an unbiased site. To my horror, this page is just as biased as Wikipedia, only in the opposite direction. Why is it that all of these encyclopedia's have to be so radically leftist or rightist as to be completely biased? Why can't this page be UNBIASED, and show each side equally? If people think that only showing the RADICAL conservative opinion on climate change is going to make people take this site seriously, they're definitely wrong. -Cybersaur

PS: I am in no way trying to defend global warming ideology. I too think it is ridiculous.

==Marcott graph==

Can someone add a section on the Marcott reconstruction, including his statement that it "cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes"?

And has anyone else besides me noticed that this admission contradicts the NY Times analysis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:38, 7 April 2013 (EDT)

== Science. ==

I would just like to show you these two. I don't know about you, but these seem pretty accurate.

[http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ Here.]
[http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ And here.]

You can claim politics and yell libtard, but that wont help change those two.

User:CenterK

2013-07-01T05:55:48Z

CenterK: Created page with " I am a devout centrist, sometimes agreeing with conservatives, sometimes with liberals."

I am a devout centrist, sometimes agreeing with conservatives, sometimes with liberals.

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2013-07-01T05:53:01Z

CenterK: /* Proposed Enhancements */

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:''Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.'' - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)
::Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the [[King James Version]] translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)

:::Douglas, I'm [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-minded about this]], but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Stalking Horse ==

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

:I have an [[open mind]] about whether Santorum was a [[stalking horse]] for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many [[conservatives]] who had rallied behind him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of [[Conservapedia proven right]]?[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim [[Conservapedia proven right]] about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters '''''perceived''''' "Santorum as the [[conservative]] alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.

::::::::What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! [[User:Insel|Insel]] 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Another case of selective reading.... ==

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "''America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. ''" So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:You seem to be focusing on the [[hearsay]] in the article, which of course would be [[inadmissible]] in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.

:Please see [[hearsay society]] for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of [[deliberate ignorance]] or [[closed-mindedness]]. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::::To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] are two seperate issues. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that ''the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas''.
:::::But his claim is ''Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.'' That's quite a difference!
:::::And calling ''the claim that mankind is causing this'' [...] ''implausible'' seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Predicted Increase in Premature Graying ==

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the [[Andy Schlafly|article about you]] that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]] page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of [[Christ]] rising from the dead does prove several theories in [[Christianity]].

:With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the [[Hearsay society]], I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that.

:::Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask [[Jesus]] for a reference after telling the parable of the [[Prodigal Son]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The [[Hearsay Society]] is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies [[logic]] and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. [[Pharisees]] used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Jesus told the [[parable]] as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the [[Prodigal Son]] then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::But ASchlafly, you yourself said that [[parable| a parable is "a fictional narrative."]] Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so.

:::::David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. [[User:JacobJ|JacobJ]] 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]]

::::::::So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as [[public schools]] might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the [[Prodigal Son]], but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

===A related issue===
A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture is one thing. A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture who led a project to re-write the Bible because parts of it did not conform to his political ideology is quite another. Then the claims of the man become self-fulfilling. Step 1: "Here is a claim about the world." Step 2: "For verification of this claim, please consult the version of the Bible that I wrote that reinforces the vision of the world that I am claiming in Step 1." Step 3: "If you have a problem with that, remember that Jesus--at least the version of him that I describe in my Bible--said things without reference to anything, and I can too. Because, like the claims of Jesus (the one in the Bible I rewrote), my claims are obvious." Does that not strike you as problematic? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 16:01, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Conservative Bible Project]] has always been dedicated to translating the original meaning of the [[Bible]] more precisely, free of [[liberal bias]] that creeps into other translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Which explains why so many noted conservative theologians have given the rewritten Bible that you produced high praises, and why so many conservative churches and denominations are using it instead of those other, more liberal versions, I guess. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 00:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

:::I think the first statement would amount to more reliance on [[hearsay]] concerning what "conservative" theologians supposedly said. And, by the way, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] was never a "rewritten Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

{{nohearsay}}
What is this?
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 15:50, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:It's a template that can be used to answer or pre-empt calls for references on pages where they aren't needed. There's also <nowiki>{{nohearsaysection}}</nowiki> for use on specific sections of pages.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is a scientist, a well-respected man and a well-known conservative (so no liberal bias involved), who has spent his career investigating premature greying in society, collecting data on the current incidence of premature greying and studying historic records on premature greying. Let us further assume - purely hypothetically - that this man has found that premature greying has not increased since, say, the time of Jesus up to now. If we don't know this man personally, should we take his results seriously or should we dismiss them and all reference to them as hearsay? What if we know him personally, maybe even as a close friend, and know him to be an honest, conservative man? Should we trust him and take his results seriously, even if they contradict what we believe to be true? At what point does information obtained from someone else stop being hearsay? You will surely say that he will not find contradicting results, but my question is not about premature greying (incidentally, I'm in my mid-40s and have been completely grey for at least ten years now). What I really want to understand is the concept of hearsay, its limits and the connection to openmindedness. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:36, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
::I'm sorry, I meant what's the point of this. References aren't bad, they prevent people from inventing their own facts.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:21, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

:::When a demand for references is used to shout down logic or obvious truths available to everyone, then that is bad. When references are used to repeat hearsay contained in the references, then that is also bad. Silly demands for references or authority were used to interfere with the logic and obvious truths in the [[Gospels]], which of course contain no references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
'::good point. However, when used correctly, references help people navigate the facts and content

::::I agree, but too often people demand references as a way of sidestepping clear logic or obvious truths, while accepting worthless references in other situations if the references reinforce their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::So, I understand that it some situations, references just aren't readily available. Maybe because an insight is either so obvious that no one's bothered to discuss it or so novel that no one's thought to discuss it. But in other situations, they are available. Lots of smart people have studied lots of obscure things. In situations where references are available, is it appropriate to use them? If I, for example, found a study investigating the age at which people go grey, would that be worth considering? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:07, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
::::::Yes, of course references are sometimes - often - wholly appropriate and very useful. They are used extensively on Conservapedia. But Wikipedia has gone beyond that and suffers from a kind of reference-mania - dismissing ''any'' statement that has no reference, and conversely often allowing any old garbage on the grounds that it does have a (questionable) citation.
:::::: See the comics [http://xkcd.com/978/ here] and [http://xkcd.com/906/ here] for two humorous commentaries on the problems caused by Wikipedia's policies (though note that other comics on that site may not be so educational - in fact the second link should come with a mild warning).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:18, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I understand, I think, your criticism of how references are used elsewhere. I'm more interested in trying to understand how you/Andy/Conservapedia want them to be used here. How do I know when it is appropriate to ask for a reference? If I ask for one and am told it is not necessary, by what criteria will we (or even better, objective others) determine who is correct? If I have a reference on some topic, how will I know whether or not it is appropriate to include in an article? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:31, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

== Opportunities for improvement ==

I recently stumbled upon this article after a link to it was featured on the main page. After reviewing the article and it's subsequent talk page discussion, I believe I have found a few areas that could stand some attention.

# '''Ambiguousness of predictions''' - Many of the predictions are vague and offer little in the way of an objectively measurable outcome. To be effective, predictions should be as specific as possible, with indisputable results.
# '''Links to predictions''' - Very few of the list items reference the article (and exact edit) on Conservapedia where the actual prediction was made. Critics of the project could easily claim that predictions were being made after-the-fact once the final outcome was known. Citing the specific edit where the prediction was made would preemptively silence such criticism.
# '''"Liberal claptrap" responses''' - Like the predictions themselves, only a minuscule amount of the alleged liberal uproar is actually documented.
# '''The results''' - Surprisingly many of the results do not link to any external source, where the reader can review the material and reach their own conclusion about the accuracy of the prediction.

--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)

:You're welcome to add more references, but the predictions and outcomes are so clear and well-known that even more references are hardly necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:10, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Item on Armstrong is somewhat ridiculous ==

Lance Armstrong was stripped from his titles in August 2012, so adding him in September 2012 to the list of overrated sport-starts doesn't take a visionary... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:46, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:May seem obvious now, but as you can see from the reference there was objection in September 2012 to including him in the [[Overrated Sports Stars]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::I remember this well, as I reinserted the entry. So there were two editors ([[User:Wonders]] and [[User:AugustO]]) who thought that he was overrated, and other Conservapedians disagreed: you have enough convenient predictions to cover any outcome.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::No, because the deniers were not "Conservapedians" in many meaningful sense. Conservapedians said he was overrated, and non-Conservapedians disagreed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:08, 15 January 2013 (EST)

*the article on [[Lance Armstrong]] was created in '''Sep 2007'''. The first reference to drug abuse was inserted in '''Jan 2012'''
*In '''Sep 2007''' wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong&oldid=156195303#Allegations_of_drug_use article on Armstrong] already had a long section named '''Allegations of drug use'''
So even if you claim that Conservapedia was proven right, it came quite late to the party... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:34, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::"Predicting" that Armstrong is overrated in September is a bit like "predicting" that Obama would win the election ... on the 7th of November. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:12, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September. There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:47, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September.'' Evidence?
:::::''There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.'' Link?
:::::There are those thinks called ''facts''... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:57, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Liberal companies including a beer company and Nike continued to endorse Armstrong for months after September. Now, do you need a citation for that too???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::Just citations which show that [[Anheuser Bush]] and [[Nike]] are liberal companies... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::Oh please ... is it really necessary to provide a citation that Nike and a beer company are liberal???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Yes. In my country, beer companies belong to the most conservative companies imaginable. And [[Anheuser Bush]] doesn't strike me as a kind of micro-brewery.
:::::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:32, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Both Nike and Budd dropped him, presumably after looking in detail at their legal options. Besides I cannot imagine how you would even begin to argue that Nike is a "liberal" company - they are one of the biggest exploiters of cheap labour in the world; they are famous for having extremely lax safety standards for employees, and being in favour of countries that reduce them as much as possible. I'm not familiar with the beer company, but given their size I doubt they would meet any sensible definition of liberal. As for "I'm sure there are atheist websites who endorse him still"; that is a meaningless statement unless you actually cite one. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:07, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::It's difficult for me to imagine any corporation as "liberal." When the primary motivator is profit, groups and individuals tend to go conservative. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:41, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Big corporations have never been friendly to the conservative movement. Except for the union issue, big corporations tend to support liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 16 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::I think the opposite is the case (take, for example, the membership of ALEC). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:14, 16 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::(EC)And tax policy, and health and safety, and welfare, and discrimination laws, and minimum wages, and healthcare, and political finance reform and etc etc ad nauseum. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:18, 16 January 2013 (EST)
Rupert Murdock a liberal? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:58, 16 January 2013 (EST)

: Rupert Murdoch is whatever will further his business interests. He has at various times supported both sides of politics when doing so helps his various business interests. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:13, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:: ''The Australian, "The Times of London", "The Wall Street Journal"'', those rubbish tabloids in Britain. New York and in the various state capitals in Australia - "liberal" papers, Dvergne? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:38, 16 January 2013 (EST)

This is like shooting fish in a barrel guys - just follow the money. In 2012, Anheuser Busch donated [https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00034488 55% of its PAC money to Republicans, 45% to Democrats]. Since 2003, it has donated [http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=207 45% of its money to Republicans, and 38% to Democrats]. In 2012, Nike donated [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 63% to Republicans, 37% to Democrats]. Since 2004, Nike has given [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 43% to Republicans, 40% to Democrats]. Although neither are 'overwhelmingly GOP', like, for example, [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00236489 Koch Industries] (98% Republican, 2% Democrat), if the Nike and Anheuser Busch numbers were election results, they would be called a "landslide" for Republicans. The vast majority of corporations will be found to be like this - it's in their interest to support less regulation, lower business taxes, etc, and they almost all line up to support conservatives. [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 12:27, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:The donations by corporations to Republicans are typically to '''''liberal''''' Republicans, some of whom are more liberal than many Democrats.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::But Anheuser-Busch is a member of ALEC, at least according to [http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/cied_35-day_mailing_2011_annual_meeting%20New%20Orleans.pdf this source]. I don't think they would belong to ALEC if they were liberal. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:13, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::Not to mention that Anheuser-Busch donated to Andy's favorite candidate [[Todd Akin]]. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:32, 18 January 2013 (EST)

== Relay ==

I read [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/02/130208-super-bowl-blackout-cause/ the National Geographic article], and it appears that the argument is whether the relay mechanically failed or whether it was improperly set. Nothing suggests that relay or its use was not at fault, and certainly nothing suggests that energy rationing of any sort contributed to the outage. Please fix this. Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 21:25, 9 February 2013 (EST)

:A low setting on a relay (or fuse) would result from guidelines based on rationing energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::Relays almost never fail, and stadiums almost never go dark. You can't prove that a relay didn't cause a blackout by saying that relays almost never fail, just as liberals can't prove that God didn't create the world because worlds almost never are created. --[[User:Praymond|Praymond]] 11:30, 27 May 2013 (EDT)
::There are several other, more plausible reasons. It could have been to prevent larger-scale blackouts due to interruption in the power coming into the stadium. It could have been to reduce the risk of fire (the same kind of reason why circuit breakers in your home trip). Or, the setting may have been too low simply due to human error. The details should be sorted out soon through investigation. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:31, 9 February 2013 (EST)

== Media bullying ==

A simple google search shows that the term "media bullying" was already in use before Conservapedia purportedly coined it. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:48, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

:Were prior uses elsewhere of the term "[[media bullying]]" in the same rich meaning as the usage here?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
::You claim (and literally wrote) that Conservapedia coined the ''term''. However, judging from your reply, what you probably intended to write was that Conservapedia merely coined the highly particular ''usage'' of the term. That is an essential difference. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:13, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

== Explained that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ==

The article cited as proof that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer mentions nothing about abortions, nothing about ''Roe V Wade'' being connected with the increase of cancer in young women. Quote: "Why more young women would be presenting with tumors that have already spread to bone, brain, lungs, or other distant sites ''isn't clear, they noted. Rising obesity rates, changes in alcohol and tobacco use, and genetics are possible causes, according to Dr. Thomas Julian, director of surgical oncology at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh."
''

If you want to find a connection, or have some proof, I recommend adding it, but this is not that proof. Doesn't even come close. It just so happens that the studies started a few years after ''Roe V Wade'' was decided. There is not even a casual connection between the two mentioned in this article. [[User:Vyselink|Vyselink]] 15:03, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:Newspaper articles often do have the problem of [[liberal denial]], but are cited here for the facts they contain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

==Tamerlan Tsarnaev==
Does anyone else feel like this might be jumping the gun a little?? "Tamerlan Tsarnaev '''probably''' murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA '''likely''' proves it." The words "probably" and "likely" are not synonyms for "proven right"... especially not when the [[Conservapedia proven right#cite note-56|only citation provided]] is a link back to the [[Main Page|same statement]] (without any external source at the time of this posting) on the main page of this very website. I honestly haven't followed the murder case at all and have no idea what is going on with it, but the information provided here is far from convincing to me. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:24, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
:I stand corrected, there is now a [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0511/Tsarnaev-2011-murders-Boston-bombing-brothers-also-could-be-linked-to-earlier-deaths source] provided on the main page... however, it very clearly states that the evidence only points to them being in the area on the day of the murder and circumstantial at best. Like I said above, I haven't been following the case so I don't know all the details, I just feel it's a little premature to claim CP was proven right on this. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:33, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't see any "liberal bias" or right-vs-left in any of this. All Americans believe that the Boston Marathon bombing, carjacking, police shootouts etc. were horrible behavior. It is an opportunity for the nation to pull together to respond to this. We all want the police and the criminal justice system to work effectively to identify all related crimes and any possible co-conspirators. America demands a complete and professional investigation. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:13, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

:::Within days the DNA evidence from the [[9/11]] triple-murder was compared with the DNA of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and they likely matched. (If they didn't match, then authorities would surely say so.) '''''Yet [[liberal denial]] about the DNA match continues'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:57, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

==Proposed Enhancements==
It seems my recent edit to this page was more controversial than I intended. I wanted to apologize to the project for the problems that I caused--it was never my intent to remove substantive material. I believe the lay out of the chart can be enhanced, and the following is my proposed methodology. I will not endeavor to make these changes without approval. Each of these phases would be enacted in separate edits with significant time in between them to facilitate review.
 -First: Standardization of the dates. Currently, there is no standard. Some dates are seasons while others are ranges, and those with specific dates are displayed with no specific style. My proposed standardization is as follows--for dates: (Full Month) (Day) (Year). for those that are currently seasons or ranges, I will search for the first relevant edit and use that as the date. I will provide a citation.
 -Second: Citation of Claims. After completing phase one, my intent is to revisit the table and provide internal citations to all predication made.
 -Third: Citation of Results. After completing phase two, my intent is to revisit the table and provide citations to all results.
 -Fourth: Sortability of Table. After completing phase three, my intent is to edit the formatting to create a sort-able table.

I believe these enhancements will improve the visual appeal of the table. Further, I believe these enhancements embody an important principle: credit where credit is due. Conservapedia has often made bold predictions and has been proven right time and time again. Although it is improper to brag, we ought to take pride in, and document, the project's success.

Again, my apologies for any complications my previous edits caused. [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

:I'm fine with the addition of citations, and with standardizing the form for dates is good too. I don't see how sortability will be a problem. The reason I reverted prior edits to this entry was that content changed. For example, and I don't know if this was your edit, but a correct statement about Manning throwing interceptions in the final key game was changed to incorrectly state that Tebow had done so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

::As I work through adding dates and internal citations, I have noticed that the archive page of In The News ends in December 2011. Were the months January-December 2012 archived? I ask because searching the archives is simpler than my current method of searching through revision histories. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 09:06, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

:::I think 2012 is archived here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

::::Ah, great! I was looking at the general archives page here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives] Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:55, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

I suggest deleting the point about the speed of light being variable. The article sited does not in fact say this. It states that the speed of light is constant but that space is not the complete vacuum previously thought. Thus the speed of light is slightly slower traveling through space as it is in any non vacuum. [[User:CenterK|CenterK]] 01:53, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2013-07-01T05:50:35Z

CenterK: /* Proposed Enhancements */

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:''Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.'' - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)
::Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the [[King James Version]] translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)

:::Douglas, I'm [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-minded about this]], but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Stalking Horse ==

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

:I have an [[open mind]] about whether Santorum was a [[stalking horse]] for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many [[conservatives]] who had rallied behind him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of [[Conservapedia proven right]]?[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim [[Conservapedia proven right]] about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters '''''perceived''''' "Santorum as the [[conservative]] alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.

::::::::What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! [[User:Insel|Insel]] 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Another case of selective reading.... ==

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "''America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. ''" So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:You seem to be focusing on the [[hearsay]] in the article, which of course would be [[inadmissible]] in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.

:Please see [[hearsay society]] for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of [[deliberate ignorance]] or [[closed-mindedness]]. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::::To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] are two seperate issues. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that ''the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas''.
:::::But his claim is ''Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.'' That's quite a difference!
:::::And calling ''the claim that mankind is causing this'' [...] ''implausible'' seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Predicted Increase in Premature Graying ==

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the [[Andy Schlafly|article about you]] that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]] page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of [[Christ]] rising from the dead does prove several theories in [[Christianity]].

:With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the [[Hearsay society]], I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that.

:::Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask [[Jesus]] for a reference after telling the parable of the [[Prodigal Son]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The [[Hearsay Society]] is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies [[logic]] and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. [[Pharisees]] used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Jesus told the [[parable]] as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the [[Prodigal Son]] then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::But ASchlafly, you yourself said that [[parable| a parable is "a fictional narrative."]] Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so.

:::::David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. [[User:JacobJ|JacobJ]] 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]]

::::::::So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as [[public schools]] might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the [[Prodigal Son]], but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

===A related issue===
A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture is one thing. A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture who led a project to re-write the Bible because parts of it did not conform to his political ideology is quite another. Then the claims of the man become self-fulfilling. Step 1: "Here is a claim about the world." Step 2: "For verification of this claim, please consult the version of the Bible that I wrote that reinforces the vision of the world that I am claiming in Step 1." Step 3: "If you have a problem with that, remember that Jesus--at least the version of him that I describe in my Bible--said things without reference to anything, and I can too. Because, like the claims of Jesus (the one in the Bible I rewrote), my claims are obvious." Does that not strike you as problematic? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 16:01, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Conservative Bible Project]] has always been dedicated to translating the original meaning of the [[Bible]] more precisely, free of [[liberal bias]] that creeps into other translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Which explains why so many noted conservative theologians have given the rewritten Bible that you produced high praises, and why so many conservative churches and denominations are using it instead of those other, more liberal versions, I guess. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 00:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

:::I think the first statement would amount to more reliance on [[hearsay]] concerning what "conservative" theologians supposedly said. And, by the way, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] was never a "rewritten Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

{{nohearsay}}
What is this?
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 15:50, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:It's a template that can be used to answer or pre-empt calls for references on pages where they aren't needed. There's also <nowiki>{{nohearsaysection}}</nowiki> for use on specific sections of pages.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is a scientist, a well-respected man and a well-known conservative (so no liberal bias involved), who has spent his career investigating premature greying in society, collecting data on the current incidence of premature greying and studying historic records on premature greying. Let us further assume - purely hypothetically - that this man has found that premature greying has not increased since, say, the time of Jesus up to now. If we don't know this man personally, should we take his results seriously or should we dismiss them and all reference to them as hearsay? What if we know him personally, maybe even as a close friend, and know him to be an honest, conservative man? Should we trust him and take his results seriously, even if they contradict what we believe to be true? At what point does information obtained from someone else stop being hearsay? You will surely say that he will not find contradicting results, but my question is not about premature greying (incidentally, I'm in my mid-40s and have been completely grey for at least ten years now). What I really want to understand is the concept of hearsay, its limits and the connection to openmindedness. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:36, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
::I'm sorry, I meant what's the point of this. References aren't bad, they prevent people from inventing their own facts.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:21, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

:::When a demand for references is used to shout down logic or obvious truths available to everyone, then that is bad. When references are used to repeat hearsay contained in the references, then that is also bad. Silly demands for references or authority were used to interfere with the logic and obvious truths in the [[Gospels]], which of course contain no references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
'::good point. However, when used correctly, references help people navigate the facts and content

::::I agree, but too often people demand references as a way of sidestepping clear logic or obvious truths, while accepting worthless references in other situations if the references reinforce their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::So, I understand that it some situations, references just aren't readily available. Maybe because an insight is either so obvious that no one's bothered to discuss it or so novel that no one's thought to discuss it. But in other situations, they are available. Lots of smart people have studied lots of obscure things. In situations where references are available, is it appropriate to use them? If I, for example, found a study investigating the age at which people go grey, would that be worth considering? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:07, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
::::::Yes, of course references are sometimes - often - wholly appropriate and very useful. They are used extensively on Conservapedia. But Wikipedia has gone beyond that and suffers from a kind of reference-mania - dismissing ''any'' statement that has no reference, and conversely often allowing any old garbage on the grounds that it does have a (questionable) citation.
:::::: See the comics [http://xkcd.com/978/ here] and [http://xkcd.com/906/ here] for two humorous commentaries on the problems caused by Wikipedia's policies (though note that other comics on that site may not be so educational - in fact the second link should come with a mild warning).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:18, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I understand, I think, your criticism of how references are used elsewhere. I'm more interested in trying to understand how you/Andy/Conservapedia want them to be used here. How do I know when it is appropriate to ask for a reference? If I ask for one and am told it is not necessary, by what criteria will we (or even better, objective others) determine who is correct? If I have a reference on some topic, how will I know whether or not it is appropriate to include in an article? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:31, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

== Opportunities for improvement ==

I recently stumbled upon this article after a link to it was featured on the main page. After reviewing the article and it's subsequent talk page discussion, I believe I have found a few areas that could stand some attention.

# '''Ambiguousness of predictions''' - Many of the predictions are vague and offer little in the way of an objectively measurable outcome. To be effective, predictions should be as specific as possible, with indisputable results.
# '''Links to predictions''' - Very few of the list items reference the article (and exact edit) on Conservapedia where the actual prediction was made. Critics of the project could easily claim that predictions were being made after-the-fact once the final outcome was known. Citing the specific edit where the prediction was made would preemptively silence such criticism.
# '''"Liberal claptrap" responses''' - Like the predictions themselves, only a minuscule amount of the alleged liberal uproar is actually documented.
# '''The results''' - Surprisingly many of the results do not link to any external source, where the reader can review the material and reach their own conclusion about the accuracy of the prediction.

--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)

:You're welcome to add more references, but the predictions and outcomes are so clear and well-known that even more references are hardly necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:10, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Item on Armstrong is somewhat ridiculous ==

Lance Armstrong was stripped from his titles in August 2012, so adding him in September 2012 to the list of overrated sport-starts doesn't take a visionary... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:46, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:May seem obvious now, but as you can see from the reference there was objection in September 2012 to including him in the [[Overrated Sports Stars]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::I remember this well, as I reinserted the entry. So there were two editors ([[User:Wonders]] and [[User:AugustO]]) who thought that he was overrated, and other Conservapedians disagreed: you have enough convenient predictions to cover any outcome.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::No, because the deniers were not "Conservapedians" in many meaningful sense. Conservapedians said he was overrated, and non-Conservapedians disagreed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:08, 15 January 2013 (EST)

*the article on [[Lance Armstrong]] was created in '''Sep 2007'''. The first reference to drug abuse was inserted in '''Jan 2012'''
*In '''Sep 2007''' wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong&oldid=156195303#Allegations_of_drug_use article on Armstrong] already had a long section named '''Allegations of drug use'''
So even if you claim that Conservapedia was proven right, it came quite late to the party... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:34, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::"Predicting" that Armstrong is overrated in September is a bit like "predicting" that Obama would win the election ... on the 7th of November. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:12, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September. There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:47, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September.'' Evidence?
:::::''There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.'' Link?
:::::There are those thinks called ''facts''... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:57, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Liberal companies including a beer company and Nike continued to endorse Armstrong for months after September. Now, do you need a citation for that too???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::Just citations which show that [[Anheuser Bush]] and [[Nike]] are liberal companies... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::Oh please ... is it really necessary to provide a citation that Nike and a beer company are liberal???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Yes. In my country, beer companies belong to the most conservative companies imaginable. And [[Anheuser Bush]] doesn't strike me as a kind of micro-brewery.
:::::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:32, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Both Nike and Budd dropped him, presumably after looking in detail at their legal options. Besides I cannot imagine how you would even begin to argue that Nike is a "liberal" company - they are one of the biggest exploiters of cheap labour in the world; they are famous for having extremely lax safety standards for employees, and being in favour of countries that reduce them as much as possible. I'm not familiar with the beer company, but given their size I doubt they would meet any sensible definition of liberal. As for "I'm sure there are atheist websites who endorse him still"; that is a meaningless statement unless you actually cite one. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:07, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::It's difficult for me to imagine any corporation as "liberal." When the primary motivator is profit, groups and individuals tend to go conservative. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:41, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Big corporations have never been friendly to the conservative movement. Except for the union issue, big corporations tend to support liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 16 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::I think the opposite is the case (take, for example, the membership of ALEC). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:14, 16 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::(EC)And tax policy, and health and safety, and welfare, and discrimination laws, and minimum wages, and healthcare, and political finance reform and etc etc ad nauseum. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:18, 16 January 2013 (EST)
Rupert Murdock a liberal? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:58, 16 January 2013 (EST)

: Rupert Murdoch is whatever will further his business interests. He has at various times supported both sides of politics when doing so helps his various business interests. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:13, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:: ''The Australian, "The Times of London", "The Wall Street Journal"'', those rubbish tabloids in Britain. New York and in the various state capitals in Australia - "liberal" papers, Dvergne? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:38, 16 January 2013 (EST)

This is like shooting fish in a barrel guys - just follow the money. In 2012, Anheuser Busch donated [https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00034488 55% of its PAC money to Republicans, 45% to Democrats]. Since 2003, it has donated [http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=207 45% of its money to Republicans, and 38% to Democrats]. In 2012, Nike donated [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 63% to Republicans, 37% to Democrats]. Since 2004, Nike has given [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 43% to Republicans, 40% to Democrats]. Although neither are 'overwhelmingly GOP', like, for example, [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00236489 Koch Industries] (98% Republican, 2% Democrat), if the Nike and Anheuser Busch numbers were election results, they would be called a "landslide" for Republicans. The vast majority of corporations will be found to be like this - it's in their interest to support less regulation, lower business taxes, etc, and they almost all line up to support conservatives. [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 12:27, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:The donations by corporations to Republicans are typically to '''''liberal''''' Republicans, some of whom are more liberal than many Democrats.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::But Anheuser-Busch is a member of ALEC, at least according to [http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/cied_35-day_mailing_2011_annual_meeting%20New%20Orleans.pdf this source]. I don't think they would belong to ALEC if they were liberal. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:13, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::Not to mention that Anheuser-Busch donated to Andy's favorite candidate [[Todd Akin]]. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:32, 18 January 2013 (EST)

== Relay ==

I read [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/02/130208-super-bowl-blackout-cause/ the National Geographic article], and it appears that the argument is whether the relay mechanically failed or whether it was improperly set. Nothing suggests that relay or its use was not at fault, and certainly nothing suggests that energy rationing of any sort contributed to the outage. Please fix this. Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 21:25, 9 February 2013 (EST)

:A low setting on a relay (or fuse) would result from guidelines based on rationing energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::Relays almost never fail, and stadiums almost never go dark. You can't prove that a relay didn't cause a blackout by saying that relays almost never fail, just as liberals can't prove that God didn't create the world because worlds almost never are created. --[[User:Praymond|Praymond]] 11:30, 27 May 2013 (EDT)
::There are several other, more plausible reasons. It could have been to prevent larger-scale blackouts due to interruption in the power coming into the stadium. It could have been to reduce the risk of fire (the same kind of reason why circuit breakers in your home trip). Or, the setting may have been too low simply due to human error. The details should be sorted out soon through investigation. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:31, 9 February 2013 (EST)

== Media bullying ==

A simple google search shows that the term "media bullying" was already in use before Conservapedia purportedly coined it. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:48, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

:Were prior uses elsewhere of the term "[[media bullying]]" in the same rich meaning as the usage here?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
::You claim (and literally wrote) that Conservapedia coined the ''term''. However, judging from your reply, what you probably intended to write was that Conservapedia merely coined the highly particular ''usage'' of the term. That is an essential difference. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:13, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

== Explained that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ==

The article cited as proof that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer mentions nothing about abortions, nothing about ''Roe V Wade'' being connected with the increase of cancer in young women. Quote: "Why more young women would be presenting with tumors that have already spread to bone, brain, lungs, or other distant sites ''isn't clear, they noted. Rising obesity rates, changes in alcohol and tobacco use, and genetics are possible causes, according to Dr. Thomas Julian, director of surgical oncology at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh."
''

If you want to find a connection, or have some proof, I recommend adding it, but this is not that proof. Doesn't even come close. It just so happens that the studies started a few years after ''Roe V Wade'' was decided. There is not even a casual connection between the two mentioned in this article. [[User:Vyselink|Vyselink]] 15:03, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:Newspaper articles often do have the problem of [[liberal denial]], but are cited here for the facts they contain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

==Tamerlan Tsarnaev==
Does anyone else feel like this might be jumping the gun a little?? "Tamerlan Tsarnaev '''probably''' murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA '''likely''' proves it." The words "probably" and "likely" are not synonyms for "proven right"... especially not when the [[Conservapedia proven right#cite note-56|only citation provided]] is a link back to the [[Main Page|same statement]] (without any external source at the time of this posting) on the main page of this very website. I honestly haven't followed the murder case at all and have no idea what is going on with it, but the information provided here is far from convincing to me. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:24, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
:I stand corrected, there is now a [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0511/Tsarnaev-2011-murders-Boston-bombing-brothers-also-could-be-linked-to-earlier-deaths source] provided on the main page... however, it very clearly states that the evidence only points to them being in the area on the day of the murder and circumstantial at best. Like I said above, I haven't been following the case so I don't know all the details, I just feel it's a little premature to claim CP was proven right on this. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:33, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't see any "liberal bias" or right-vs-left in any of this. All Americans believe that the Boston Marathon bombing, carjacking, police shootouts etc. were horrible behavior. It is an opportunity for the nation to pull together to respond to this. We all want the police and the criminal justice system to work effectively to identify all related crimes and any possible co-conspirators. America demands a complete and professional investigation. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:13, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

:::Within days the DNA evidence from the [[9/11]] triple-murder was compared with the DNA of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and they likely matched. (If they didn't match, then authorities would surely say so.) '''''Yet [[liberal denial]] about the DNA match continues'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:57, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

==Proposed Enhancements==
It seems my recent edit to this page was more controversial than I intended. I wanted to apologize to the project for the problems that I caused--it was never my intent to remove substantive material. I believe the lay out of the chart can be enhanced, and the following is my proposed methodology. I will not endeavor to make these changes without approval. Each of these phases would be enacted in separate edits with significant time in between them to facilitate review.
 -First: Standardization of the dates. Currently, there is no standard. Some dates are seasons while others are ranges, and those with specific dates are displayed with no specific style. My proposed standardization is as follows--for dates: (Full Month) (Day) (Year). for those that are currently seasons or ranges, I will search for the first relevant edit and use that as the date. I will provide a citation.
 -Second: Citation of Claims. After completing phase one, my intent is to revisit the table and provide internal citations to all predication made.
 -Third: Citation of Results. After completing phase two, my intent is to revisit the table and provide citations to all results.
 -Fourth: Sortability of Table. After completing phase three, my intent is to edit the formatting to create a sort-able table.

I believe these enhancements will improve the visual appeal of the table. Further, I believe these enhancements embody an important principle: credit where credit is due. Conservapedia has often made bold predictions and has been proven right time and time again. Although it is improper to brag, we ought to take pride in, and document, the project's success.

Again, my apologies for any complications my previous edits caused. [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

:I'm fine with the addition of citations, and with standardizing the form for dates is good too. I don't see how sortability will be a problem. The reason I reverted prior edits to this entry was that content changed. For example, and I don't know if this was your edit, but a correct statement about Manning throwing interceptions in the final key game was changed to incorrectly state that Tebow had done so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

::As I work through adding dates and internal citations, I have noticed that the archive page of In The News ends in December 2011. Were the months January-December 2012 archived? I ask because searching the archives is simpler than my current method of searching through revision histories. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 09:06, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

:::I think 2012 is archived here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

::::Ah, great! I was looking at the general archives page here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives] Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:55, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

I suggest deleting the point about the speed of light being variable. The article sited does not in fact say this. It states that the speed of light is constant but that space is not the complete vacuum previously thought. Thus the speed of light is slightly slower traveling through space as it is in any non vacuum.

Conservapedia proven right

2013-07-01T05:49:28Z

CenterK:

'''''Conservapedia''''' has often been proven right on topics ranging from science to politics to [[video games]], including predictions that some [[liberals]] have pathetically tried to ridicule:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of ''Conservapedia'' statement
!''Conservapedia'' statement
![[liberal claptrap]] in response
!Result
!Date of Result
|-
|December 26, 2006
|The [[Nobel Prize]] "selection process has become political, as it was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II or to anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]]. The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken [[liberal]]s, such as Jimmy Carter."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize&oldid=7393</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] insists that the Nobel Prize has integrity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|Subsequently the Nobel Peace Prize was absurdly awarded to [[Barack Obama]] despite a lack of any beneficial, meaningful achievement, and even Obama supporters reacted with "shock" and "a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability."<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/09/a_weighty_prize.html</ref>
|October 09, 2009
|-
|February 18, 2007
|Explained that [[abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&oldid=14427</ref>
|Strident, hysterical denials by liberals, who oppose even telling women of the possibility of an increase in risk.
|A new study shows that the "number of young women being diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer has been slowly but steadily rising over the past 3 decades," beginning a few years after ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Health/advanced-breast-cancer-rise-younger-women/story?id=18606955</ref>
|February 27, 2013
|-
|March 15, 2007
|Observed that [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not [[conservative]], and cited several key examples.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_O%27Reilly&oldid=37999</ref>
|[[Liberal media]] continued to pretend that O'Reilly is somehow a leader of the [[conservative movement]].
|O'Reilly endorses the [[liberal]]s' amnesty bill for illegal immigration.
|June 20, 2013
|-
|March 24, 2007
|Pointed out how hostile the [[Fox News Channel]] is to [[pro-life]] leaders,<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=64126</ref> and observed in 2012 how it had become a bunch of [[RINO Backers]].
|Silence by [[liberals]] who like pretending that [[Fox News Channel]] is [[conservative]], when it isn't.
|The ratings of Fox News drops to a 12-year low, doing particularly poorly among the 25-54 age group.
|January 30, 2013 <ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/fox-news-ratings-hit-year-low-155638.html</ref>
|-
|May 07, 2007
|The speed of light varies.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&oldid=147388</ref>
|Liberals shout down anything contrary to the [[Theory of Relativity]].
|"So it turns out the speed of light might not be constant after all." <ref>http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=50261</ref>
|March 25, 2013
|-
|August 18, 2007
|Because [[Jon Stewart]]'s movies "almost always do very badly (critically and financially) people say that there is a 'Jon Stewart Curse' that he brings to all his movies."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jon_Stewart&oldid=271190</ref>
|His audience of [[public school]] kids is clueless.
|The 2008 Oscars, which he hosted, set the modern record for fewest viewers, and except for one very minor part as himself Stewart has not appeared in a movie since Conservapedia's observation in 2007.
|February 24, 2008
|-
|October 04, 2007
|In 2007, Conservapedia creates its [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] article.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality_in_animals_myth&oldid=308759</ref>
|Liberals tout a supposed "gay [[penguin]]" in a California zoo.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref> Liberals rabidly deny someone can be an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]]. Ex-homosexual is faced with a $10,000 fine, spends $7,000 in legal fees, and is forced to go to pro-homosexuality classes by a liberal judge who claimed he engaged in a aggressive behavior in a discussion with homosexual man (during his discussion the ex-homosexual man was holding a baby).<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref>
|In 2009, the alleged gay penguin in a California zoo starts a romance with lady penguin and abandons his supposed male penguin lover. The homosexual activist [[Wayne Besen]] claims the penguin is living in denial and not an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] male penguin. (see: [[Homosexuality in animals myth]]).<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref>
|July 15, 2009
|-
|January 10, 2008
|Conservapedia observes that [[Shaken Baby Syndrome]] is a doubtful theory by governmental child protective services, which has resulted in dubious convictions.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shaken_Baby_Syndrome&oldid=367617</ref>
|The governmental "experts" must be right and Conservapedia must somehow be wrong.
|Years later, even [[National Public Radio]] admitted doubts about a conviction for Shaken Baby Syndrome, and [[Democrat]] Governor [[Jerry Brown]] commuted a high-profile sentence for it.<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/shaken-baby-case-an-update/#.T4DftOjeRkI.email</ref>
|April 07, 2012
|-
|February 27, 2008
|Conservapedia warns against the [[HPV vaccine]], observing that it was not tested for possibly causing infertility.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&oldid=395596</ref>
|How can government and the big pharmaceutical industry be wrong???
|The ''British Medical Journal'' reports on a case study of a severe condition of infertility in a 16-year-old girl subsequent to taking the HPV vaccine.<ref>http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2012/bcr-2012-006879.abstract</ref>
|October 3, 2012
|-
|April 14, 2008
|Conservapedia coins the term "[[media bullying]]."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Media_bullying&oldid=430832</ref>
|[[liberal denial]] in response
|Prominent African American physician Benjamin Carson observes, "The bullies are ... especially the media who like to just beat on anybody who doesn't toe the line ... they suppress [[freedom of speech]]."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/03/09/dr-carson-media-bullies-suppress-freedom-speech-beat-anyone-who-doesn#ixzz2N5XWfVMc</ref>
|March 09, 2013
|-
|October 05, 2008
|Observed that [[Barack Obama]] is likely Muslim and could become the first Muslim President.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=530340</ref>
|While liberals would denounce the religion of Obama's future rival, [[Mitt Romney]], they insist that Obama's religion cannot be questioned.
|Once elected, Obama stops attending church, and he eschews using a Bible for his official swearing-in procedure; [[Obama's Religion|Obama makes it clear that he is likely Muslim]] in additional ways.
|January 21, 2009
|-
|March 24, 2008
|Beginning in March of 2008, Conservapedia begins chronicling higher education moral corruption via its [[Professor values]] article.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Professor_values&oldid=412536</ref> Starting in 2010, Conservapedia repeatedly warns students about picking their college majors on its main page. See: [[Worst college majors]] Conservapedia also cites [[Gerald Celente]] about future protests in Europe/Europe and cites Celente concerning useless college majors which needlessly rack up debts in young people. Conservapedia warns about a future "higher educational bubble".<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/archive91</ref>
|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing.
|January 18, 2011. It is reported that a study shows that a very large percentage of college students are not developing higher thinking skills.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html</ref> The trend of liberal colleges closing their doors continues.<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/07/09/baldwin</ref><ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/</ref>

[[Occupy Wall Street]] and other Occupy protests happen in the United States and in Europe in 2011 and young people are very prevalent in the protests. Some protests turn violent and engage in property destruction. In November of 2011, the Daily Mail reports concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement and the trash/garbage associated with it: "If this is the product of our liberal arts colleges, why continue their tax exemptions and tax support? Universities are supposed to produce intelligent people who will make a positive contribution to society. Not these pigs".<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46288</ref> In 2011, it is reported that Occupy movements are littering the streets.<ref>http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=1967</ref>

Young Occupy Wall Street protesters are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|-
|December 22, 2008
|the theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occurring, despite much evidence to the contrary.
|In 2011, frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory by the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]"; in 2011 and 2013, even the [[liberal media]] admit there has been no atmospheric warming since 1998.
|July 06, 2011 <ref>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/</ref>
|-
|August 04, 2009
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August of 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November of 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|February 3, 2011
|-
|September 21, 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitude.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|January 14, 2010
|Conservapedia identifies the significance of an effort to recall Menendez from office.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Robert_Menendez&oldid=744786</ref>
|Liberals stood by Menendez for years.
|Finally the ''[[New York Times]]'' said that [[Harry Reid]] should take a committee gavel away from Menendez. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/opinion/mr-menendezs-ethics-problem.html?hp&_r=0</ref>
|February 8, 2013
|-
|March 14, 2010
|''Conservapedia'' predicted that [[Rick Santorum]] was a stalking horse for [[Mitt Romney]]<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=762021</ref>
|Some mistakenly viewed Santorum as the only other option besides Romney, at the expense of [[Newt Gingrich]]
|After taking votes away from Gingrich, Santorum surprised many by dropping out of the race, practically giving the victory to Romney; Santorum then endorsed Romney-like [[Jon Bruning]] instead of the [[conservative]] [[Don Stenberg]] for [[U.S. Senate]] in [[Nebraska]], and then endorsed Romney in a late-night email.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/santorum-underwhelming-endorsement-romney-081055500.html</ref>
|May 7, 2012
|-
|April 19, 2010
|In [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], ''Conservapedia'' observed that intelligence has long been declining.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=770704</ref>
|Repeated attempts to remove the insight from the entry.
|A Stanford University geneticist confirms that intelligence has been declining for thousands of years.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/nov/12/pampered-humanity-less-intelligent</ref>
|November 12, 2012
|-
|June 12, 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/June_2010</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement.
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 13, 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Letter_to_Douglas_Moo&oldid=791512</ref>
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|November 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|August 10, 2010
|In August of 2010, Conservapedia created the article [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]] indicating that [[Richard Dawkins]] had a significant problem with the women segment of the marketplace and that he [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|was abrasive]] and [[Atheism and cowardice|cowardly.]]<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Women%27s_views_of_Richard_Dawkins&oldid=803578</ref>
|Atheist men scoff at the article.
|In July of 2011, the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal occurs. A woman in the [[Skepchick]] community says "I look forward to watching your legacy crash and burn."<ref>[https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzoCyyqmp5b5LUdobkxhblpmTDA/edit?pli=1 Skepchick woman]</ref> <ref>http://skepchick.org/2011/07/dear-richard-dawkins/</ref>
|July 6, 2011
|-
|October 14, 2010
|Conservapedia observes and predicts increased premature graying as a [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=822877</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] that premature graying is increasing.
|A top actress -- Katie Holmes, the wife of Tom Cruise -- is observed having gray hairs at only age 33.
|April 29, 2012
|-
| February 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months.
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination and has lost political influence. <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/105741/</ref>
|October 5, 2011
|-
|August 24, 2011
|In the late summer of 2011, a Conservapedian was very optimistic on [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]] and continues to be very optimistic.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Question_evolution!_campaign&oldid=904849</ref>
|Atheists and evolutionists whine about the campaign plus a YouTube atheist and/or evolutionist creates a fairly popular yet ultimately ineffective video which is easily refuted. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]
|The website traffic of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) sees significant growth post August 2011 (see: [[Essay: Grinding up American atheism into a fine pulp|CMI web traffic growth]]). Atheists and evolutionists have yet to adequately answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that satisfactorily evolutionists cannot answer] which is the focus of the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Global atheism continues to fall in the number of its adherents.
|November 12, 2011 <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:_Grinding_up_American_atheism_into_a_fine_pulp&oldid=936440</ref>
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_Presidential_Race_-_Endorsements_for_Republicans_2012&oldid=944456</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself.
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|October 11, 2011
|-
|September 3, 2011
|Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=909160</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] becaues this would suggest that [[atheist]]ic claims of a stable [[Old Earth]] are untrue.
|"A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress," according to a presentation at the Seismological Society of America.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-earthquakes-usa-idUSBRE83G1FL20120417</ref>

On May 24, 3013, the second massive earthquake in 2013 (magnitude 8 and above) occurred, ''which is more than the total annual amount in each of the past 5 years''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0525/Russia-8.2-earthquake-is-big-but-no-deaths</ref>
|April 17, 2012 and May 24, 2013
|-
|November 2, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed that [[Pacific Institute]] was not a non-partisan environmental group but deceitful liberals promoting lies.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pacific_Institute&oldid=933383</ref>
|Pretend that Peter Gleick and other environmentalists don't utilize bad science or push political agendas
|Pacific Institute's president Peter Gleick promoted bad science and pushed a biased liberal political agenda by admitting to fraud in 2012. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref>
| February 21, 2012
|-
|November 29, 2011
|Conservapedia pointed out the connection between violent [[video games]] and [[young mass murderers]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_mass_murderers&oldid=941531</ref>
|Nonsense, liberals claimed.
|An unspeakable slaughter of 20 elementary school children occurred in Newtown, Connecticut by a 20-year-old player of violent video games, followed by a mass burning of violent games weeks later.

|December 17, 2012
|-
|Janurary 3, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Iowa Caucuses]] before all the results were in, and despite polling suggesting he would only attain third place
|For weeks the [[lamestream media]] insisted that [[Mitt Romney]] won.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|January 20, 2012 <ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/santorum-now-the-iowa-winner-officially-111713.html</ref>
|-
|Feburary 7, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Colorado]] primary relatively early in the evening, long before all the results were in, and despite Romney later surpassing Santorum during part of the night
|Liberals delayed for hours before admitting that Santorum would win.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|February 8, 2012
|-
|March 9, 2012
|"Disney movies, which have churned out liberal claptrap for more than a decade, strike out again on opening night for Disney's lame ''John Carter''. The last Disney movie to qualify for [[Greatest Conservative Movies]] was its brilliant Beauty and the Beast (1991)."
|Liberals don't criticize Disney as long it continues to promote [[feminism]] and other liberal drivel.
|The Disney film unit chairman "resigned following the company’s $200 million loss on the science-fiction picture 'John Carter,' possibly the biggest ever for a single movie."
|April 20, 2012
|-
|June 24, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' criticizes the Denver Broncos for replacing [[Tim Tebow]] with Peyton Manning, and adds Manning to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]]. <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=989247</ref>
|Liberals insist that Manning will be better for Broncos, and pretend that politics had nothing to do with this surprise replacement.
|To the amazement of liberals, Manning throws 2 key interceptions that enable the underdog Ravens to humiliate the Broncos in Denver in their first playoff game.
|January 11, 2013
|-
|June 23, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' adds [[David Beckham]] to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]] <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=989076</ref>
|Liberals desperately tried to find a role for Beckham, eventually having him play the absurd part of conveying the torch by speedboat to the Olympic Stadium while the final part of the ceremony was in progress.
|To the amazement of liberals, Beckham was not even selected for the British Olympic soccer team, even though other players over the age of 23 were selected. Subsequently, the media promoted Beckham as the likely final torchbearer, which was instead given to [[the best of the public]] (five unknown but rising young athletes).
|June 28, 2012
|-
|September 6, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' added [[God]]-denier [[Lance Armstrong]] to our list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]] <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=1004539</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] continued about Armstrong, insisting that he be removed from this entry because Armstrong continued to deny the obvious;<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&diff=prev&oldid=1004539]</ref> the liberal Olympic bureaucrats refused for months to strip Armstrong of his medal, until after Armstrong admitted his doping.
|Finally and pathetically Armstrong admitted what he had so aggressively denied about doping.
|January 14, 2013
|-
|Fall 2012
|''Conservapedia'' repeatedly predicted that liberals would not allow one of the [[Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Star]]s, [[Tim Tebow]], to have any real playing time on the ''New York Jets'', and that it would pathetically fail without Tebow.
|Liberals insisted Tebow would play if the other QB failed, or that Tebow was not good enough to play, despite how he led the underachieving Broncos to a playoff victory against the highly ranked Steelers.
|The ''New York Jets'' failed miserably while never giving Tebow any real playing time, and the ''Jets'' were eliminated from playoff contention even before the last week of the season. <ref>http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/new_york_jets_eliminated_from.html</ref>
|December 18, 2012
|-
|November 18, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' observed that the ''L.A. Lakers'' had packed their starting line-up with [[Overrated Sports Stars]], and then hired their preferred coach despite how a better one was available.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=1019273</ref>
|Liberals thought these players and the hiring of the new coach were good because the media told them so.
|The ''L.A. Lakers'' barely made the playoffs, and then were routed by record-setting margins in the first round.
|January 10, 2013
|-
| February 3, 2013
|''Conservapedia'' observed that extended 35-minute blackout at the [[Super Bowl]] was likely caused in part by the energy rationing mindset of liberals.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=1055150&oldid=1032962</ref>
|It was a faulty relay, the [[lamestream media]] and local authorities claimed.
|It was not a faulty relay - relays almost never fail in such a manner, as confirmed by an expert quoted by ''National Geographic''.
|Februrary 9, 2013
|-
|January 8, 2013
|"The liberal media go along with the communist cover-up about Hugo Chavez, despite how he likely died in a Cuban hospital in December."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1028225</ref>
|Repeated insistence that reports in the [[lamestream media]] that Chavez was alive from December to March, including even a photo purporting to be him, must be true.
|Hugo Chavez is indeed dead, but the [[BBC]] claims he died nearly two months after Conservapedia had already informed the world of that fact.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21679053</ref> It is reported that Chavez's decomposition is too advanced for embalming. Proving he died much earlier than reported. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-venezuela-chavez-embalming-idUSBRE92C1GC20130313 Venezuela may be unable to embalm Chavez's remains]</ref>
|March 5, 2013
|-
|April 23, 2013
|"Tamerlan Tsarnaev probably murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA likely proves it."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=1048618</ref>
|Even though the DNA match is quick and known to the Obama Administration, even though there will be no trial of Tamerlan, and even though closure on the 9/11-anniversary murders would comfort families of the victims, liberals want the DNA match to continue to be withheld from the families and the public.
|More than two weeks later, stories begin to appear in the [[lamestream media]] that forensic evidence and cell phone records confirm the likely involvement of Tamerlan Tsarnaev in committing the gruesome murders.
|May 11, 2013
|-
|}

==See also==
*[[Conservapedia proven wrong]] - A much shorter list!

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Conservapedia proven right

2013-07-01T05:45:51Z

CenterK:

'''''Conservapedia''''' has often been proven right on topics ranging from science to politics to [[video games]], including predictions that some [[liberals]] have pathetically tried to ridicule:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of ''Conservapedia'' statement
!''Conservapedia'' statement
![[liberal claptrap]] in response
!Result
!Date of Result
|-
|December 26, 2006
|The [[Nobel Prize]] "selection process has become political, as it was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II or to anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]]. The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken [[liberal]]s, such as Jimmy Carter."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize&oldid=7393</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] insists that the Nobel Prize has integrity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|Subsequently the Nobel Peace Prize was absurdly awarded to [[Barack Obama]] despite a lack of any beneficial, meaningful achievement, and even Obama supporters reacted with "shock" and "a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability."<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/09/a_weighty_prize.html</ref>
|October 09, 2009
|-
|February 18, 2007
|Explained that [[abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&oldid=14427</ref>
|Strident, hysterical denials by liberals, who oppose even telling women of the possibility of an increase in risk.
|A new study shows that the "number of young women being diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer has been slowly but steadily rising over the past 3 decades," beginning a few years after ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Health/advanced-breast-cancer-rise-younger-women/story?id=18606955</ref>
|February 27, 2013
|-
|March 15, 2007
|Observed that [[Bill O'Reilly]] is not [[conservative]], and cited several key examples.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_O%27Reilly&oldid=37999</ref>
|[[Liberal media]] continued to pretend that O'Reilly is somehow a leader of the [[conservative movement]].
|O'Reilly endorses the [[liberal]]s' amnesty bill for illegal immigration.
|June 20, 2013
|-
|March 24, 2007
|Pointed out how hostile the [[Fox News Channel]] is to [[pro-life]] leaders,<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=64126</ref> and observed in 2012 how it had become a bunch of [[RINO Backers]].
|Silence by [[liberals]] who like pretending that [[Fox News Channel]] is [[conservative]], when it isn't.
|The ratings of Fox News drops to a 12-year low, doing particularly poorly among the 25-54 age group.
|January 30, 2013 <ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/01/fox-news-ratings-hit-year-low-155638.html</ref>
|-
|May 07, 2007
|The speed of light varies.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&oldid=147388</ref>
|Liberals shout down anything contrary to the [[Theory of Relativity]].
|"So it turns out the speed of light might not be constant after all." <ref>http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=50261</ref>
|March 25, 2013
|-
|August 18, 2007
|Because [[Jon Stewart]]'s movies "almost always do very badly (critically and financially) people say that there is a 'Jon Stewart Curse' that he brings to all his movies."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jon_Stewart&oldid=271190</ref>
|His audience of [[public school]] kids is clueless.
|The 2008 Oscars, which he hosted, set the modern record for fewest viewers, and except for one very minor part as himself Stewart has not appeared in a movie since Conservapedia's observation in 2007.
|February 24, 2008
|-
|October 04, 2007
|In 2007, Conservapedia creates its [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] article.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality_in_animals_myth&oldid=308759</ref>
|Liberals tout a supposed "gay [[penguin]]" in a California zoo.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref> Liberals rabidly deny someone can be an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]]. Ex-homosexual is faced with a $10,000 fine, spends $7,000 in legal fees, and is forced to go to pro-homosexuality classes by a liberal judge who claimed he engaged in a aggressive behavior in a discussion with homosexual man (during his discussion the ex-homosexual man was holding a baby).<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref>
|In 2009, the alleged gay penguin in a California zoo starts a romance with lady penguin and abandons his supposed male penguin lover. The homosexual activist [[Wayne Besen]] claims the penguin is living in denial and not an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] male penguin. (see: [[Homosexuality in animals myth]]).<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref>
|July 15, 2009
|-
|January 10, 2008
|Conservapedia observes that [[Shaken Baby Syndrome]] is a doubtful theory by governmental child protective services, which has resulted in dubious convictions.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shaken_Baby_Syndrome&oldid=367617</ref>
|The governmental "experts" must be right and Conservapedia must somehow be wrong.
|Years later, even [[National Public Radio]] admitted doubts about a conviction for Shaken Baby Syndrome, and [[Democrat]] Governor [[Jerry Brown]] commuted a high-profile sentence for it.<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/shaken-baby-case-an-update/#.T4DftOjeRkI.email</ref>
|April 07, 2012
|-
|February 27, 2008
|Conservapedia warns against the [[HPV vaccine]], observing that it was not tested for possibly causing infertility.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&oldid=395596</ref>
|How can government and the big pharmaceutical industry be wrong???
|The ''British Medical Journal'' reports on a case study of a severe condition of infertility in a 16-year-old girl subsequent to taking the HPV vaccine.<ref>http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2012/bcr-2012-006879.abstract</ref>
|October 3, 2012
|-
|April 14, 2008
|Conservapedia coins the term "[[media bullying]]."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Media_bullying&oldid=430832</ref>
|[[liberal denial]] in response
|Prominent African American physician Benjamin Carson observes, "The bullies are ... especially the media who like to just beat on anybody who doesn't toe the line ... they suppress [[freedom of speech]]."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/03/09/dr-carson-media-bullies-suppress-freedom-speech-beat-anyone-who-doesn#ixzz2N5XWfVMc</ref>
|March 09, 2013
|-
|October 05, 2008
|Observed that [[Barack Obama]] is likely Muslim and could become the first Muslim President.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=530340</ref>
|While liberals would denounce the religion of Obama's future rival, [[Mitt Romney]], they insist that Obama's religion cannot be questioned.
|Once elected, Obama stops attending church, and he eschews using a Bible for his official swearing-in procedure; [[Obama's Religion|Obama makes it clear that he is likely Muslim]] in additional ways.
|January 21, 2009
|-
|March 24, 2008
|Beginning in March of 2008, Conservapedia begins chronicling higher education moral corruption via its [[Professor values]] article.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Professor_values&oldid=412536</ref> Starting in 2010, Conservapedia repeatedly warns students about picking their college majors on its main page. See: [[Worst college majors]] Conservapedia also cites [[Gerald Celente]] about future protests in Europe/Europe and cites Celente concerning useless college majors which needlessly rack up debts in young people. Conservapedia warns about a future "higher educational bubble".<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/archive91</ref>
|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing.
|January 18, 2011. It is reported that a study shows that a very large percentage of college students are not developing higher thinking skills.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html</ref> The trend of liberal colleges closing their doors continues.<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/07/09/baldwin</ref><ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/</ref>

[[Occupy Wall Street]] and other Occupy protests happen in the United States and in Europe in 2011 and young people are very prevalent in the protests. Some protests turn violent and engage in property destruction. In November of 2011, the Daily Mail reports concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement and the trash/garbage associated with it: "If this is the product of our liberal arts colleges, why continue their tax exemptions and tax support? Universities are supposed to produce intelligent people who will make a positive contribution to society. Not these pigs".<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46288</ref> In 2011, it is reported that Occupy movements are littering the streets.<ref>http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=1967</ref>

Young Occupy Wall Street protesters are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|-
|December 22, 2008
|the theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occurring, despite much evidence to the contrary.
|In 2011, frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory by the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]"; in 2011 and 2013, even the [[liberal media]] admit there has been no atmospheric warming since 1998.
|July 06, 2011 <ref>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/</ref>
|-
|August 04, 2009
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August of 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November of 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|February 3, 2011
|-
|September 21, 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitude.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|January 14, 2010
|Conservapedia identifies the significance of an effort to recall Menendez from office.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Robert_Menendez&oldid=744786</ref>
|Liberals stood by Menendez for years.
|Finally the ''[[New York Times]]'' said that [[Harry Reid]] should take a committee gavel away from Menendez. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/opinion/mr-menendezs-ethics-problem.html?hp&_r=0</ref>
|February 8, 2013
|-
|March 14, 2010
|''Conservapedia'' predicted that [[Rick Santorum]] was a stalking horse for [[Mitt Romney]]<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=762021</ref>
|Some mistakenly viewed Santorum as the only other option besides Romney, at the expense of [[Newt Gingrich]]
|After taking votes away from Gingrich, Santorum surprised many by dropping out of the race, practically giving the victory to Romney; Santorum then endorsed Romney-like [[Jon Bruning]] instead of the [[conservative]] [[Don Stenberg]] for [[U.S. Senate]] in [[Nebraska]], and then endorsed Romney in a late-night email.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/santorum-underwhelming-endorsement-romney-081055500.html</ref>
|May 7, 2012
|-
|April 19, 2010
|In [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], ''Conservapedia'' observed that intelligence has long been declining.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=770704</ref>
|Repeated attempts to remove the insight from the entry.
|A Stanford University geneticist confirms that intelligence has been declining for thousands of years.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/nov/12/pampered-humanity-less-intelligent</ref>
|November 12, 2012
|-
|June 12, 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/June_2010</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement.
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 13, 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Letter_to_Douglas_Moo&oldid=791512</ref>
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|November 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|August 10, 2010
|In August of 2010, Conservapedia created the article [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]] indicating that [[Richard Dawkins]] had a significant problem with the women segment of the marketplace and that he [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|was abrasive]] and [[Atheism and cowardice|cowardly.]]<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Women%27s_views_of_Richard_Dawkins&oldid=803578</ref>
|Atheist men scoff at the article.
|In July of 2011, the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal occurs. A woman in the [[Skepchick]] community says "I look forward to watching your legacy crash and burn."<ref>[https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzoCyyqmp5b5LUdobkxhblpmTDA/edit?pli=1 Skepchick woman]</ref> <ref>http://skepchick.org/2011/07/dear-richard-dawkins/</ref>
|July 6, 2011
|-
|October 14, 2010
|Conservapedia observes and predicts increased premature graying as a [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=822877</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] that premature graying is increasing.
|A top actress -- Katie Holmes, the wife of Tom Cruise -- is observed having gray hairs at only age 33.
|April 29, 2012
|-
| February 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months.
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination and has lost political influence. <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/105741/</ref>
|October 5, 2011
|-
|August 24, 2011
|In the late summer of 2011, a Conservapedian was very optimistic on [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]] and continues to be very optimistic.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Question_evolution!_campaign&oldid=904849</ref>
|Atheists and evolutionists whine about the campaign plus a YouTube atheist and/or evolutionist creates a fairly popular yet ultimately ineffective video which is easily refuted. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]
|The website traffic of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) sees significant growth post August 2011 (see: [[Essay: Grinding up American atheism into a fine pulp|CMI web traffic growth]]). Atheists and evolutionists have yet to adequately answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that satisfactorily evolutionists cannot answer] which is the focus of the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Global atheism continues to fall in the number of its adherents.
|November 12, 2011 <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:_Grinding_up_American_atheism_into_a_fine_pulp&oldid=936440</ref>
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_Presidential_Race_-_Endorsements_for_Republicans_2012&oldid=944456</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself.
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|October 11, 2011
|-
|September 3, 2011
|Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=909160</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] becaues this would suggest that [[atheist]]ic claims of a stable [[Old Earth]] are untrue.
|"A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress," according to a presentation at the Seismological Society of America.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-earthquakes-usa-idUSBRE83G1FL20120417</ref>

On May 24, 3013, the second massive earthquake in 2013 (magnitude 8 and above) occurred, ''which is more than the total annual amount in each of the past 5 years''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0525/Russia-8.2-earthquake-is-big-but-no-deaths</ref>
|April 17, 2012 and May 24, 2013
|-
|November 2, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed that [[Pacific Institute]] was not a non-partisan environmental group but deceitful liberals promoting lies.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pacific_Institute&oldid=933383</ref>
|Pretend that Peter Gleick and other environmentalists don't utilize bad science or push political agendas
|Pacific Institute's president Peter Gleick promoted bad science and pushed a biased liberal political agenda by admitting to fraud in 2012. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref>
| February 21, 2012
|-
|November 29, 2011
|Conservapedia pointed out the connection between violent [[video games]] and [[young mass murderers]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_mass_murderers&oldid=941531</ref>
|Nonsense, liberals claimed.
|An unspeakable slaughter of 20 elementary school children occurred in Newtown, Connecticut by a 20-year-old player of violent video games, followed by a mass burning of violent games weeks later.

|December 17, 2012
|-
|Janurary 3, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Iowa Caucuses]] before all the results were in, and despite polling suggesting he would only attain third place
|For weeks the [[lamestream media]] insisted that [[Mitt Romney]] won.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|January 20, 2012 <ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/santorum-now-the-iowa-winner-officially-111713.html</ref>
|-
|Feburary 7, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Colorado]] primary relatively early in the evening, long before all the results were in, and despite Romney later surpassing Santorum during part of the night
|Liberals delayed for hours before admitting that Santorum would win.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|February 8, 2012
|-
|March 9, 2012
|"Disney movies, which have churned out liberal claptrap for more than a decade, strike out again on opening night for Disney's lame ''John Carter''. The last Disney movie to qualify for [[Greatest Conservative Movies]] was its brilliant Beauty and the Beast (1991)."
|Liberals don't criticize Disney as long it continues to promote [[feminism]] and other liberal drivel.
|The Disney film unit chairman "resigned following the company’s $200 million loss on the science-fiction picture 'John Carter,' possibly the biggest ever for a single movie."
|April 20, 2012
|-
|June 24, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' criticizes the Denver Broncos for replacing [[Tim Tebow]] with Peyton Manning, and adds Manning to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]]. <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=989247</ref>
|Liberals insist that Manning will be better for Broncos, and pretend that politics had nothing to do with this surprise replacement.
|To the amazement of liberals, Manning throws 2 key interceptions that enable the underdog Ravens to humiliate the Broncos in Denver in their first playoff game.
|January 11, 2013
|-
|June 23, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' adds [[David Beckham]] to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]] <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=989076</ref>
|Liberals desperately tried to find a role for Beckham, eventually having him play the absurd part of conveying the torch by speedboat to the Olympic Stadium while the final part of the ceremony was in progress.
|To the amazement of liberals, Beckham was not even selected for the British Olympic soccer team, even though other players over the age of 23 were selected. Subsequently, the media promoted Beckham as the likely final torchbearer, which was instead given to [[the best of the public]] (five unknown but rising young athletes).
|June 28, 2012
|-
|September 6, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' added [[God]]-denier [[Lance Armstrong]] to our list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]] <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=1004539</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] continued about Armstrong, insisting that he be removed from this entry because Armstrong continued to deny the obvious;<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&diff=prev&oldid=1004539]</ref> the liberal Olympic bureaucrats refused for months to strip Armstrong of his medal, until after Armstrong admitted his doping.
|Finally and pathetically Armstrong admitted what he had so aggressively denied about doping.
|January 14, 2013
|-
|Fall 2012
|''Conservapedia'' repeatedly predicted that liberals would not allow one of the [[Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Star]]s, [[Tim Tebow]], to have any real playing time on the ''New York Jets'', and that it would pathetically fail without Tebow.
|Liberals insisted Tebow would play if the other QB failed, or that Tebow was not good enough to play, despite how he led the underachieving Broncos to a playoff victory against the highly ranked Steelers.
|The ''New York Jets'' failed miserably while never giving Tebow any real playing time, and the ''Jets'' were eliminated from playoff contention even before the last week of the season. <ref>http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/new_york_jets_eliminated_from.html</ref>
|December 18, 2012
|-
|November 18, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' observed that the ''L.A. Lakers'' had packed their starting line-up with [[Overrated Sports Stars]], and then hired their preferred coach despite how a better one was available.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=1019273</ref>
|Liberals thought these players and the hiring of the new coach were good because the media told them so.
|The ''L.A. Lakers'' barely made the playoffs, and then were routed by record-setting margins in the first round.
|January 10, 2013
|-
| February 3, 2013
|''Conservapedia'' observed that extended 35-minute blackout at the [[Super Bowl]] was likely caused in part by the energy rationing mindset of liberals.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=1055150&oldid=1032962</ref>
|It was a faulty relay, the [[lamestream media]] and local authorities claimed.
|It was not a faulty relay - relays almost never fail in such a manner, as confirmed by an expert quoted by ''National Geographic''.
|Februrary 9, 2013
|-
|January 8, 2013
|"The liberal media go along with the communist cover-up about Hugo Chavez, despite how he likely died in a Cuban hospital in December."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1028225</ref>
|Repeated insistence that reports in the [[lamestream media]] that Chavez was alive from December to March, including even a photo purporting to be him, must be true.
|Hugo Chavez is indeed dead, but the [[BBC]] claims he died nearly two months after Conservapedia had already informed the world of that fact.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21679053</ref> It is reported that Chavez's decomposition is too advanced for embalming. Proving he died much earlier than reported. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-venezuela-chavez-embalming-idUSBRE92C1GC20130313 Venezuela may be unable to embalm Chavez's remains]</ref>
|March 5, 2013
|-
|April 23, 2013
|"Tamerlan Tsarnaev probably murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA likely proves it."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=1048618</ref>
|Even though the DNA match is quick and known to the Obama Administration, even though there will be no trial of Tamerlan, and even though closure on the 9/11-anniversary murders would comfort families of the victims, liberals want the DNA match to continue to be withheld from the families and the public.
|More than two weeks later, stories begin to appear in the [[lamestream media]] that forensic evidence and cell phone records confirm the likely involvement of Tamerlan Tsarnaev in committing the gruesome murders.
|May 11, 2013
|-
|}

I suggest deleting the point about the speed of light being variable. The article sited does not in fact say this. It states that the speed of light is constant but that space is not the complete vacuum previously thought. Thus the speed of light is slightly slower traveling through space as it is in any non vacuum.

==See also==
*[[Conservapedia proven wrong]] - A much shorter list!

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]