Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

New Year's Day

2012-12-31T19:27:20Z

Colesmithsayshi: /* External links */

[[Image:Fireworks3.jpg|right|300px]]

'''New Year's Day''' in most places is a [[holiday]], the first day of the year in the [[Gregorian Calendar]].

::''Ways of celebrating differ as well, according to customs and religions of the world. People in Moslem societies, for example, celebrate the new year by wearing new clothes. Southeast Asians release birds and turtles to assure themselves good luck in the twelve months ahead. [[Jewish]] people consider the day holy, and hold a religious ceremony at a meal with special foods. Hindus of [[India]] leave shrines next to their beds, so they can see beautiful objects at the start of the new year. [[Japanese]] prepare rice cakes at a social event the week before the new year.'' [http://stockholm.usembassy.gov/Holidays/celebrate/newyears.html New Year's Day]

In Pasadena, [[California]], the Tournament of Roses is held this day (this event dates back to 1886). A famous New Year's Eve celebration is held in Times Square in the heart of [[New York City]].

'''New Year's Thought'''

::''Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.'' Gal 6:9 NIV:

== See also ==

*[[Christmas]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.educ.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/438/CHINA/chinese_new_year.html Chinese New Year]
*[http://wilstar.com/holidays/newyear.htm Happy New Year]

 
<center>
[[Image:Christmas tree.jpg|Christmas tree.jpg]]
HA'''''P'''''
P
Y

N
E
W

'''Y'''
E
A
'''''R'''''

 2 0 1 3 

 

[[File:Usa new year 2010.jpg]]

</center>
[[Category:Observances]]
[[Category:Holidays]]

User talk:Ed Poor

2012-12-31T19:18:52Z

Colesmithsayshi: /* Hello */ new section

Archive:
[[/1|1]]
[[/2|2]]
[[/3|3]]
[[/4|4]]
[[/5|5]]
[[/6|6]]
[[/7|7]]
[[/8|8]]
[[/9|9]]
[[/10|10]]
[[/11|11]]
[[/12|12]]
[[/13|13]]
[[/14|14]]
[[/15|15]]
[[/16|16]]
[[/17|17]]
[[/18|18]]
----

[[Image:Ed poor grinning.jpg|right|thumb|114px|Ed Poor on campus]]



== Writing Plan ==

Hello Mr. Poor,
I would like to submit a writing plan. While I haven't been asked for one, I feel this would best help keep me on task and contribute the most productively. You seem to know an awful lot about this wiki stuff, and I'm still new at it, so if you could help me that would be great.
I think I'd first like to help contribute to the various book articles around the site by adding in examples of the influence of Christianity, as a lot of books have Christian overtones that aren't currently listed. I'm thinking I'd like to start by drawing parallels between the story of Jesus in the Gospels with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Please let me know if this would be acceptable.--[[User:JeremiahJ|JeremiahJ]] 18:10, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Probably not. Please email me a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:02, 17 January 2011 (EST)

== Request ==

Hello Mr. Poor, I have submitted a request [[Talk:Atheism#Addition_of_Information_on_Charity_and_External_Links_Request|here]] but it was never attended to. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 23:19, 28 February 2011 (EST)

== Image Upload Request ==

Hello Ed Poor, I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering if you could upload [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Young_Galaxy_Accreting_Material.jpg this image] for use in the article I recently created. I look forward to hearing your response. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 03:32, 7 March 2011 (EST)
:Hello Ed Poor, could you please add [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] to [[Template:Nb Atheism|this template]]? I really appreciate it! With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 11:14, 7 March 2011 (EST)
::Hello Ed Poor, I need two more images for the article I created which are available [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Independent_assortment_%26_segregation.svg here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lennox.jpg here]. Recently, [[User:JMR10]] uploaded my previous one, for which I am thankful. Could you ask him to do the same for these two or could you please do these for me? I highly appreciate it. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 19:40, 7 March 2011 (EST)

== I seem to have messed up the Ada article ==

My proxy keeps dropping stuff, so the picture at the top is busted. Also, I had to cut down the reference, because the captcha can't make it through. It should have a left bracket, and h,t,t,p, etc., and a right bracket after the "pdf". I wonder if you could please fix it for me. I will contact Andy about getting my IP range restored.

What I was going to put in the talk page (and will do once things get straightened out) is that the two cited articles are very shallow, having only 7 and 3 sentences, respectively. They both refer to a "plan", but that's because the word "program" hadn't been coined in the computer context. She really was the first person to write "code".

I'm sorry about this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

:I read her notes, and it doesn't look like a [[computer program]] to me. A charitable view might be that it's a [[specification|spec]], but there's no flowchart and no [[source code]]. Don't be sorry, just get it right. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:21, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

What did you expect this "source code" to look like? The term "source code" implies both a programming language and "machine code" that the source code is assembled or compiled into. Assemblers, compilers, and programming languages wouldn't be invented for another hundred years (by Grace Murray Hopper, John Backus, and others.) The same goes for the other accoutrements of modern software development, like flow charts and specifications. In fact, even the terms "software" and "program" hadn't been invented.

Furthermore, assuming that you accept that she had to write "machine code", what would you expect machine code to look like for a machine that reads its instructions with rods poking through holes in large punched cards running around on a track, and does its arithmetic by counting teeth on turning gears? It wouldn't look much like Intel 586 code.

The fact is, the lines of Ada's written algorithm were intended to be punched into lines of holes in Babbage's cards, once the "analytical engine" was built, which it wasn't.

By the way, what I was being "sorry" for was not the content of my edit, but the fact that an extremely buggy proxy messed up the article and wouldn't let me fix it, despite several tries. Andy has been working with me to fix the network problems, and DMorris fixed the broken picture and hyperlink while my access was broken. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:39, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:Then it would be more accurate to say that she described an algorithm. That's not the same as a computer program, even if she was hoping that Babbage's machine might be programmed to carry out the algorithm.

:An encyclopedia should be precise and unbiased, not used to create "factoids" for use in publicity campaigns, such as promoting [[women in science]].

:I don't say she had to write machine code, but rather to be the "first programmer" she would have had to produce a [[computer program]]. If you have seen it, please show it to me. Otherwise, I'm going to make an editorial decision that she produced an algorithm rather than a program. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:18, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

:*Let's say that [[Ada Lovelace]] wrote one of the first comprehensive descriptions of an algorithm to generate [[Bernoulli numbers]]. But until I see the actual sequence of instructions, including [[if-then]] or [[loop control]] statements, I'd hesitate to call it an actual [[computer program]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:17, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

==The anti-Semitism of liberals==
I love how libs reveal their true selves. No matter what we say or do in describing them, they come here just to confirm it all. So when they want to emphasize "Jew" in "karajou", I'll be more then happy to get a gold Magen David to wear around my neck, join my brothers and sisters in the synagogue every week, and show everyone else just how hate-filled and intolerant these liberals really are. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:20, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

== Please help! ==

Hi! I tried to add the information for Edo to the Tokyo article and for some reason,. it stripped a bunch of stuff out when I saved. Now when I try and revert the edit I made, I keep getting a internal server 500 error. Please can you revert for me? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:19, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:It's ok, I fixed it! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

::I'm glad it worked out for you. My Japanese name is "Edo". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:04, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

== Nice speed on reverts ==

You beat me to every one! Nicely done--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:05, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks. I'll pass that on to my secret bot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:10, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks for noticing me ==

I must be doing something right. Every time I mention alternate viewpoints, and no one sees fit to revert my edits, I get vandalism to my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:48, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush ==

I'm trying to reorganize the information, not leave it out. If you notice, I'm working on the article quite a bit. May I please revert your revision? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:05, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:Sure. I'm frequently too bold and hasty. And that's the wonderful thing about a wiki. Nothing is ever really deleted; it's all in the article history. Go for it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:09, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Technical question ==

I'm lobbying for a separate namespace for the Conservapedia Bible Project. The idea is that each verse gets its own ''article'', which can be used rather as a template. I see a couple of advantages:
*verses can be quoted more easily: instead of copying the whole verse, only a short link (like <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki> ) is neccessary to get a neat result: <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki>
*thereby, the use of the CBP is encouraged over other translations.
*if there is a change in the CBP, the afflicted verses don't have to be tracked down manually, but the change is applied automatically throughout the wiki.

To accomplish this, a new namespace has to be created. That shouldn't be too difficult, as there are only a few exemplary pages prefixed with ''CBP:'' at this moment.

But after this, the namespace has to be filled with the existing translated verses. My question: is your bot up to this task?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

== madonna ==

Hi, please strongly reconsider your desire to create a "kinder article." In stating that madonna is a person who has changed to being more spiritual you are buying to the liberal media's lies. It sounds like a madonna fan attempting to weave their bias in, which of course you are not. I think you may want to do more research, and read my recent additions as she is still, if not more so, a wicked and hateful person who has sucked millions of children into raunchy culture, dated murderers and mocked our Lord Jesus Christ who gave his life for us. Madonna deserves only the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 13:14, 14 July 2011 (EST)

:And I just had a long conversation with some Wikipedians in Central Park last month, about whether CP is more neutral than WP. Now you want "conservative bias" to denounce [[Madonna Ciccone]]? Not even Wikipedia's BLP policy would allow that.

:I wonder whether you are a liberal '''tempting me''' to add bias, just so you can accuse us of being biased. Well, if so, I choose not to cooperate, my dear elf. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::I think Legolas here might be a parodist. Would you mind looking into him? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Ed, your compassion sounds a little misplaced to me. Do you also visit the Fred Phelps, Bernie Madoff, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson pages asking people for some "Christian charity" to tone those down too? Look into me all you want please. I dislike Madonna because she has mocked our lord Jesus Christ. Conservative people have respect for Christ end of story. The reason society has degraded is by giving raunchy people like madonna a free pass and pity. I'm the one who wants to print the ACTUAL history of madonna that the liberal media has left out such her dating the felon Chris Paciello. I only want the truth about her in the article. Why is that so bad? I thought this was the one place that might allow the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 10:34, 17 July 2011 (EST)
:Ed, can you please look into this guy? He is an obvious parodist. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
First of all - Ed is a senior sysop at this site - I don't know why a few of you have taken upon yourself to post on [[User talk:Aschlafly|Andy's talk page]] when Ed is more than capable of dealing with an alleged parodist on his own. Secondly, just because he is posting radical things on a talk page does not make him a parodist. Looking at his contributions, you ''could'' argue that he is edit warring, but since Ed is simultaneously the user in the revert war and an admin, it is up to his judgement as to whether or not a block is deserving. Your collective alarmism has now spread across three talk pages. That's enough.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::@NickP, your very.... quick to call somebody else a parodist. Why not leave that to the pro.'s to decide?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Several others have also pointed out the fact that he acts very suspicious. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:13, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Saying he "acts suspicious" and saying he's a 100% no way im wrong about this Parodist is two completely different things.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:16, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I prefer what Wikipedia old-timers used to call "soft security". Just help me fix the articles in question. Everything will sort itself out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:34, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

==EdBot==
Ed, I left three (actually six) problem Categories that need some sort of merging at [[User_talk:EdBot]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:Sorry, EdBot did not survive the MediaWiki upgrades. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Does that mean it's all got to be done manually? Moving 200 entries into another Category?

:::Only if they really have to be moved. (Meanwhile, if anyone has an idea how a bot can "log in" with the new MediaWiki software, let me know.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot#Logging_in This] should help. Indeed, the whole [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot page] is quite interesting. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== A request concerning recent events ==

Hi Ed,

I'm very sorry to come to you with this, but I honestly don't know where else to turn at this point. You have always struck me as the voice of reason and level-headedness here.

Simply put: the current altercation on Andy's talk page is out of control. I recognize that I have no authority to tell sysops what they should or shouldn't do, but it seems to me that basic common courtesy calls for not filling up Andy's talk page with arguments and accusations. Moreover, the very public nature of the dispute is encouraging other users to join in. Some of them are doubtless sincere; others, I suspect, may in fact be parodists seeking to fan the flames (I notice a LOT of recently created accounts.)

Regardless, the fact remains that Andy's talk page has been turned into a general forum for accusations and arguments. At this point, it's degenerated to the level where people are making absolutely vicious personal attacks against certain of the participants. (Kudos to JamesWilson for promptly reverting the most egregious of these.)

You know the other sysops better than most of us; you talk to them; I would certainly hope they trust and respect your opinion. Is there anything you can do to persuade them to take a step back, cool down, and wait for Andy to respond at this point? Everyone involved has made their positions clear; further acrimony can serve no useful purpose.

I'm sorry to trouble you with this, but I really feel that this is both inconsiderate to Andy and deleterious to the Conservapedia project as a whole.

Respectfully,

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for the vote of confidence, but shouldn't I check with Andy before barging in? It may be that he prefers to let everyone air their opinions. It is not just his courage but his wisdom and compassion that attracted me to this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==[[User:MRellek]]==
Ed, per the site owner, Administrators [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 "instructions...are to be followed"] is no longer operable. I have emailed you a copy of Mr. Schlafly's approval. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, sorry. I was hasty. Feel free to unban MRellek, if you feel I was out of line. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you, Ed. I'm trying to get the other sysops to do more warnings & shorter blocks; let's get a sense of community here. After all, we've known many of these editors (the RW neighbors) for several years now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I think I got signed up somehow, after jumping into a discussion.

:Can we have non-sysops on the panel? I'd like to invite a friend from Wikipedia to join it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== If I understand correctly, you are the local math expert. ==

If so, maybe you can take a look at [[Relativistic mass|this]] and some of that editor's other contributions. They seem pretty obscure/specialized for the general reader, to me, at least. Thanks! [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 10:15, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not an expert, but I know a lot about high school math. Andy's brother knows much more than I do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== Revert ==

Good morning (afternoon?) Ed, why was my comment reverted? I can't see why it should be? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Gosh, you're quick on the trigger. See your talk page for my response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::I am indeed quick on the trigger, I like Westerns you see..:-) I have responded to you on my talk-page and re asked the question in a more cordial manner. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:59, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The panel proceeding have begun here: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]] You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Farewell ==

Ed, in all sincerity you are by far the most interesting person I have met at Conservapedia. I regret that we couldn't get along better, though we did manage to improve a number of things. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

:We'd have gotten along better if we more goals in common. Building a trustworthy encyclopedia apparently was not one of them.

:In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893745 this drive by attack] you dodged my request for specific instances of the problem you complained of. (Note: saying "all of them" is a a typical liberal dodge. That's like global warming alarmists saying, "Just look at the temperature record; the evidence is all there."

:For those listening in to this fascinating drama, the difference between real science and liberal junk science is that real scientists provide examples of what they're talking about, so that anyone can check it out and see for themselves. Liberals and other pseudoscientists '''pretend''' that they've already made the point.

:It reminds me of Japan, which always (1) says that it "already apologized" for the [[comfort women]] episode while steadfastly (2) refusing ever to admit that it did anything wrong. They are hoping we'll all be too polite to mention that #1 contradicts #2.

:Nice try on the parting shot, but your pretense of trying oh so hard fools no one. You're always welcome to come back if you '''ever''' choose to help this project instead of undermining it with trickery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:41, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

==Pontiac==
Hi Ed, thanks for your help archiving my page. I know you are very experienced with Wikis, but I was wondering why you removed what I wrote about the government shut down of Pontiac destroying American history. A lot of people were really upset about Pontiac's closure and there are lots of websites and articles proving this, why can't it be in the article? I will differ to your judgement because you are so experienced, but just want to understand your reasoning. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 22:46, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

:It can't be in the article until you find a way to make it trustworthy. Use references. You can't just write stuff off the top of your head, because you are not an established author. You are in fact an anonymous person, and we don't even know whether Craig is your real name.

:If there's a lot of proof for your assertion, be sure to provide references, like:
:*The New York Times reported that after GM was taken over by the government, brands like Saturn and Pontiac were sold or eliminated (link and/or date)

:If you need help formatting references, lots of people here can help. But '''you''' must supply them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
==Pictures==
Hi Ed, how do I add pictures? --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:08, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:You can't add pictures, until you've made enough useful contributions to earn upload rights. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:34, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::In addition, Craig, you can use [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]] until you earn uploading privileges. A Sysop will do it for you.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:59, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Ok, I'll work even harder to earn my rights! I also wanted to apologize for being so familiar, my mom pointed out that I should be calling you Mr. Poor. I always call adults by their last names in real life, but on the internet I usually forget. Also thanks Mr. Wilson for your advice about upload requests. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 13:24, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::::No worries. I wouldn't mind if you called me James or Jim, but I'm glad your mother has taught you well. Also, you will need a lot more work to earn uploading privileges, just so you know. Happy editing in the meantime!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

== Edit conflict ==

Just got edit conflicted by you on the Morse code page - what are the odds we'd both be working on it! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

:One thought leads to another ... not such long odds. Sorry about stepping on your work. Feel free to revert, and I'll recover later. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:22, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::Its all OK, I added my work to your version. Great minds think alike, more like an average mind in my case but you catch my drift...:-) [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== signature ==

I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed the format of your signature to use for my own. It's simple and to the point, but looks nice as well, so I thought I would use it as well. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 16:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:I copied mine from someone else, so "[[Pay It Forward]]." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
::Oh, ok. Thanks for letting me know! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== like wikipedia? ==

i looked up [[milk]] and [[butter]] how is this conserivtive? is it like wikipedia at all what can i add? ty. --[[User:Rainbowboiz|Rainbowboiz]] 00:35, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not unless your spelling improves. And we are not so much "conservative" as [[trustworthy]]. Unlike Wikipedia, we really do try to avoid political bias. Add anything that is correct and useful. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:17, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== Meat Loaf ==

I know his stage name is much better known (I'm writing the article on him, obviously), but wouldn't you think using the subject's real name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia? If you think the article should be titled under his stage name, you're the boss, but I thought I might want to point that out. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:14, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

== Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage ==

Please help me as I am fairly new to this wiki. I have attempted to propose a discussion for deletion on this particular page. Before disccussing this, I have followed the instructions on templates via the help index [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_for_deletion]] to add it to a discussion for deletion but this does not seem to work so I have not proceded further - with hindsight I should have guessed there was something wrong by the lack of entries on this page.
My reason for wishing to commence this discussion is that I suspect the article (created by a user who does not appear to have an active talk page) seems to me to be parody and trolling to debase the credibility of this project. In my opinion, most of the logic followed in nearly every assertion is spurious and often uses blatant synthesis that a ten year old could question. It is to such an extent that I don't think an "improved" version would be posible. Of course, others may have different oppinions which is why I am trying to be fair and open it for rational discussion. What is the correct procedure? Thank you in advance - answer to my talk page [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 19:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. Maybe you could post on the talk page, showing a few examples of "spurious" assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:46, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ok I can do this, but I'm surprised that hte Help feature supplies a redundant page on discoussing articles for deletion. I was also under the impression that you had Sysop/Admin powers and would be familiar with such policies as it is a feature on other wikis. [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 13:31, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Actually I know policy fairly well and do have Sysop/Admin powers. Either provide the requested examples, or drop the matter. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:47, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

== Sid 3050 ==

Sid 3050 was blocked for three month for ''trolling''. The only edit he made during the day before his block seems to be to answer to your question in a section above (''So, will it go away if you ignore it?'') - see his [[Special:Contributions/Sid 3050|list of contributions]]. You had personally addressed this comment (''But I'll take a look at Sid's material below now, just to be a good sport.''), so you should be able to judge whether such a comment is ''trolling''. Could you please review Sid's block? In a timely fashion? Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:Sid was trolling. Whether this justifies a three month block is up to the admin in question.

:I'm always open to suggestions for making Conservapedia more trustworthy. If you have anything specific in mind, please speak up.

:Of particular interest to me would be any material relating to the contrast between conservative and liberal viewpoints on American political issues, as well as philosophy, religion and science. To my regret, repeated invitations to include users who are ideological opponents of this project have not met with an enthusiastic response. It's almost as if they wish to conceal their ideological differences; ironically, this could be seen as self-censorship.

:If anyone wants to describe liberal POV here they may, provided only that it is clearly labeled as such - not presented as gospel. This should not be an onerous requirement: it's the same as Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:42, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Help! A user called CortA is currently vandalising articles. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:15, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:OK, Andy blocked him. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Misled by RonLar ==

I was quite astonished by your last actions. I slept over it and want to clarify my earlier remark.

*I'd appreciate if you would be less generous with your slight innuendos (''"thanks for nothing!"'', ''"misled by RonLar"''): these make it difficult to assume ''good faith'' on your side. And they have the annoying tendency to backfire...

*my statement ''"Where is the right place to propose an alternative viewpoint? Surely not in the article itself, but on its talk-page. This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about."'' is hardly misleading - even though it is not written by a native speaker! In fact, it is echoing the sentiments of Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette|editing etiquettes]]:

:::* '''You should discuss changes made by an Administrator before reverting their edits. Administrators are charged with seeing that article content is in line with Conservapedia guidelines. [[Edit war]]ring with an Administrator usually results in a temporary block.'''
:::* '''You should not alter the editorial content of an article away from a [[conservative]], or [[Christian]], or [[family friendly]] "tone" without discussing proposed changes on the talk page.'''
:::*'''Never make substantial edits to an article without discussing your changes first on the talk page. If you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change(s), the changes are just formatting / copy editing, you should proceed.'''

*Inserting an alternative viewpoint is most certainly a ''substantial edit'' - and the etiquettes advise you to discuss such an edit at first on the talk-page.

*So, I made a true statement, in accordance with Conservapedia's policy on editing, and you '''misread''' it. To reiterate: You weren't '''misled''', you simply '''misread''' it. And this misunderstanding (of your part) you took as a reason to erase the whole section and seemingly not to read the rest of my comment? Deleting a section on censorship is always a little bit ironic...

*BTW: whether the article is protected or not is not of any interest for the discussion of censorship! A library does not only censor the books it throws from it shelves, but the books it doesn't allow into it shelves in the first place!

*I put the whole section up [[User:RonLar|here]], so you can read it carefully again. Take your time, but nevertheless, react timely - you said that would be important....

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:05, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:At this point, I think it's become abundantly clear that complaining about censorship will get you nowhere. I realize users will come up and be frustrated by certain site traditions, but that's just the way Conservapedia is run, RonLar.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 13:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::Sorry, I thought you were saying the article was protected.

::Also, I'm astonished to think that you consider adding alternative viewpoints to be something that has to be '''cleared''' with a sysop first. My understanding of project policy is that all contributors are free to describe non-conservative, non-Christian views ... especially on an article describing a controversy between the two sides.

::Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]
[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:38, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::*Apology accepted. Perhaps you could revert your reaction to this misunderstanding by reintroducing the section which you erased from your talk-page?
:::*Please read [[User:RonLar#Again, the previous example of ideological censorship, in detail]] - all of it, not only the first sentence. This should answer some of your questions.
:::*Please address the incident which I mentioned there.
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Eh? I thought you wanted help. Please answer my question: Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:39, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::How is it a sensible use of my time to answer new questions when you seem to ignore my answers to your old ones? Please remember your statements:
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.'' }}
:::::and
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''I asked for an instance of ideological censorship.''}}
:::::Well, you find it here: [[User:RonLar#Again.2C_the_previous_example_of_ideological_censorship.2C_in_detail]] Of course I am willing to answer any question concerning this specific example of censorship, especially those which indicate that you read the whole comment.

:::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Nearly two weeks later: Did you take a look? Or even better, did you read the whole thing? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:17, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== Anti-Clancy cracks? ==

In general I'm a Clancy fan but I think some of the criticism you removed was valid. For example by the time he wrote "The Bear and the Dragon" his standards of research had perceptibly dropped (The AH-64 has a 20mm gun? Really?) and "Red Rabbit" and "The Teeth of the Tiger" were frankly rubbish. Maybe some of the criticisms should stay? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:09, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:Anything can stay if properly sourced: X said Y about Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:10, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::What would be an acceptable source? I have all Clancy's books; would they be acceptable sources for pointing out declining standards of technical accuracy? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:20, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::LOL, '''your''' interpretation of Clancy's writings would be (what is called at Wikipedia) original research. If you don't know what I meant by 'properly sourced', then you're unqualified to contribute anything further to this project. If you do know, you're just toying with me. Godspeed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:23, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I'd do is reference both Clancy's books and technical sources that contradict them, such as the fact that the AH-64 does NOT have a 20mm gun. Like I said I'm generally a Clancy fan - "Without Remorse" may just be the best thriller ever written - but his last few books have been a bit disappointing and his research has definitely slipped. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:28, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::What I would propose is to remove the comments about "The sum of all fears" - a nuclear weapon could be built with a table saw and a small lathe, never mind optical milling equipment - but keep and expand on the comment about the declining level of technical accuracy. The divergence of the Ryanverse from reality isn't important because it IS fiction, but the declining level of research and tendency towards unrealistic assessments of real-world capabilities IS important. For example "The Bear and the Dragon" is utterly unrealistic even in the Ryanverse. If China invaded Russia they'd get about ten feet over the border before being annihilated. The fortifitions on the Sino-Russian border make the Maginot line look like a sand castle on the beach, and they were actually designed by strategic thinkers. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:44, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

On second thought, maybe I'm being too hard on you. I recently started tutoring schoolchildren, and I'm learning to be more patient with their quaint notions. After all, making wrong guesses and getting them corrected is often the best way to learn. Shall I not condescend to grant you the same grace? ;-)

I've read all Tom Clancy's [[Jack Ryan]] and [[John Clark]] novels. I always assumed that any discrepancies were inserted on purpose; Clancy certainly would have no reason to put correct information on how to make a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in his books: what conservative would want to inspire a copycat crime?

If you want to include "criticism" by some published author who says an attack helicopter does or does not have a certain sized gun, go ahead. He's also not very accurate about the software used in the stock market, although it was a key plot element in ''[[Debt of Honor]]''. (Come to think of it, if a man knew everything and wanted to make money betting on horse races, he would know not to put all his winnings on the next race ("[[John Doe]]" TV series pilot). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Language ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Big_Bang_theory Language like this] makes me extremely uncomfortable: "when grownups talk", "woman's logic is strange, don't you think", etc. (especially this in his earlier statements: "and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985")

First, I am not a woman. My identity is very well known and I am quite easy to find. Ottava means eight, and Ottava Rima means Eight Rhyme, a type of rhyming pattern used in Italian epic poetry. Second, his language is condescending, misogynistic, religiously bigoted, etc. Third, his claims about the Big Bang Theory are rather strange, conspiratorial, and nothing I have ever heard by any legitimate scientist. I cannot honestly believe that he is a real conservative but I believe he is a plant just like many of the people who vandalize. His job is to produce some of the most absurd stuff to try and make conservatives look awful. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but his language does not seem like something that is appropriate. I talked to Geoff Plourde about this quite a bit tonight because it bothered me a lot. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Um ==

[[Atheism and obesity]] - is this a joke? It seems to be just a list of fat atheists. It even has random tidbits like "Chuck Norris endorses the Total Gym exercise system.[59]" I know many priests who are overweight, and many religious people who are. I know many atheists who are ultra thing and anorexic.

"Christian and Library of Congress researcher's explanations of reports of UFOs " How would that even deal with atheism and obesity? Yet it is in there.

The page looks like it was created to make Conservapedia and conservatism look really bad. Sigh. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

:User:Conservative is good at attracting readership to this website. The [[Atheism and obesity]] seems to me a bit of payback for the liberals who call Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

::And in his payback, he demeans everyone who is overweight, including myself. I've dealt with mean-spirited behavior from people about weight the majority of my life - there is no acceptable reason for being hostile about the issue. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:53, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== You were looking for ideological censorship? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bestiality&curid=88619&diff=920267&oldid=920266 easy to find] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

:Not as easy as you say. See [[Talk:Bestiality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Senior Admin assistance ==

Hi Ed, I would like to bring something to your attention as a senior administrator. I have been in private communication with User:SamCoulter over the last few weeks. There is nothing in his attitude and comments to me in private and his behaviour here on Conservapedia to suggest this user is anything but sincere. He was recently blocked for the edit [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamCoulter here] (the last edit he made - I will not link directly to it because the topics are extremely offensive and not family friendly). For this effort he was blocked for three months. His edit was a) relevant b) correct according to the article linked and c) was a link which was on the front page already. It seems that some users wanted to quote the article without implying the articles conclusions as they were at loggerheads with a users personal opinion. I don't think the user should have been blocked but now he is I won't remove it but I do believe that 3 months is extremely heavy-handed. I don't want to create controversy so I will not chnage the block myself but I am bringing this up with you and User:Karajou also (I am unable to contact the blocking sysop). Thank you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Keep him blocked. He vandalized twice. In fact, I am going to increase the time blocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Do you have evidence of this vandalism? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::If you want to defend those recent contributions be my guest. If you want to wrangle with me about them, it is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I tell you now '''there was no vandalism''' you are blocking a user for adding sourced and factual material. You are blocking him for no reason! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, but it's actually very easy to avoid a block. I suggest you start coaching new users about courtesy, project goals, etc.

I myself disagree with the project goals of RW, but they haven't given me any long blocks. Why? Because I follow their rules in their house.

Adolescents often have trouble figuring out what the rules are, or trouble realizing the benefits of following them. (In the long run, civil disobedience campaigns against beneficial institutions such as Democracy and Free Markets simply backfire.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:52, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:I respectfully disagree with you. It's incredibly ''easy'' to get blocked on this site, because honestly, it appears to depend on the whim of the blocking editor (doesn't like what's being said because it's contrary to the blocking editor's opinion, got up on the wrong side of the bed, had a fight with someone in real life and are taking it out on editors here at CP.) You yourself just handed out an ''infinite'' block for ''defending'' someone.

:Many editors, myself included, have protested User:Conservative's articles and his method of defending them. If anyone objects, he automatically deems them an atheist/evolutionist, etc., which at least in my case, is far from the truth. I object to several things. First, his use of "obese" as a ''ad hominem'' attack against people whose ideas he disagrees with. I've dealt with bullying behavior about weight most of my life, and have tried to point out to him how hurtful his taunts are, but he thinks it's amusing, and the other sysops here (yourself included) appear to agree. I'm all for a good discussion about ''ideas'', but when the attacks become personal, and all-inclusive, then yes, I'm going to protest.

:Second, most of the articles are just ''badly, badly written''. They meander ''miles'' away from the original topic, they tend to be a bunch of quotes lumped together, and in many of them, the point that he's trying to make is missed completely. The actual subjects might be valid, and important enough to warrent an article on them, but creating 10 articles that say the same thing, and that can (and should) be consolidated into one, '''''well-researched and well-written document''''', is just poor scholarship. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

::Well, thank you for not giving me an excuse to block you! ;-) Very well written . . .

::As I've said elsewhere, [http://ameriwiki.wikkii.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=4073&oldid=4071] I disagree with the stance of "the admin" who is making ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks on atheists; I think it's a misguided attempt to attract readership.

::If anyone's had a '''good''' edit reverted for a bad reason, they can just let me know. Just remember: if anyone is criticizing to condemn, I'm not interested, but if they want me to change things, I'm the man who can do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:03, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

== BrentH's block ==

I see you blocked BrentH for trolling and reverted 2 of his edits. He linked [[Professor]] to an existing article here on CP, [[Professor values]]. Why was that trolling? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:55, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps prior edits?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:01, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::User: Ed Poor did not appreciate the section right above this one--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:14, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:::BrentH made a perfectly reasonable and respectful suggestion. It would appear from the edit history that he was referring to an article about Winona Ryder, created by Ed Poor, which contained one piece of trivia but no basic information regarding the person whatsoever. What BrentH said is simply common sense, and I too cannot see how this can justify a block. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:45, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Indeed, certain longstanding members of this community seem to have rather thin skin. I did not see BrentH's post as offensive or out of line--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:54, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== This is an encyclopedia. ==

You wrote that on my talkpage. ''This is an encyclopedia.''. Well, if it is articles like [[bestiality and Britain]] ahould be deleted because, as I have pointed out numerous times, it has nothing to do with bestiality and Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:27, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:Article deleted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Ed+Poor&page=&year=&month=-1&hide_patrol_log=1]
::Hey thanks Ed. Just for the record though I wasn't "bothered" by the content so much as bothered by the ''lack'' of content. As the commandments say - everything must be true and verifiable which that article clearly wasn't. Many thanks. I must admit - I have a lot of respect for you and karajou. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Ed, evolution was birthed in Britain and secularism has grown rampant in their country. Now their society is a mess and there is rioting in the streets. In addition, the'' Guardian'' just published a puff piece on bestiality. I say enough is enough and it's time their moral rot is exposed. I realize that pointing out that folly and consequences of atheism/evolutionism annoys liberals, but so what. Not only are they grossly and obviously in error, but atheists/evolutionists have shown themselves [[Atheism and cowardice|to be timid little bunnies]]. I restored the article because I feel confident that Conservapedia can stand up to foolish and timid little bunnies. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Enough with the insults conservative. I am neither a liberal nor an atheist and am sick to death of you accusing me of such. The article has nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' about the practice in Britain. I say again '''nothing'''. You poor scholarship is on show and we can ''all'' see it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Ed, a Brit was trying to bring over his deviant farming practices to the United States as can be seen [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7600523/British-man-51-arrested-at-bestiality-farm.html HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You misread the article, Conservative. The Oregon farm is owned by an American. The British man was visiting it. Read [http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-seattle/seattle-convicted-cocaine-smuggler-arrested-likely-into-bestiality-liking-sex-with-animals here] for a version of the story that makes who owned the farm clearer.
[[File:Keldaby goats.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|An exclusive British art gallery was criticised for displaying a highly offensive bestiality oriented painting which featured a [[goat]] just yards from The Ritz hotel and where it could be seen by children.- The Daily Mail online (MailOnline), August 5, 2011 ''The explicit art that shows bestiality with a goat just yards from The Ritz'']]
::::::::There is no way I'd let children any where this site with Conservatives despicable articles all over the place. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Max, I heard Oregon was pretty liberal. It figures the farm was in Oregon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I heard that most states are pretty liberal... But that doesn't make the rumors true. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 22:34, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Oregon voted for Obama plus fairly recently they had the most atheists per capita in the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:Omaha, Nebraska also voted for obama but calling it liberal is very silly--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ Oregon is liberal] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:07, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm slightly confused as to why it's relevant or not that Oregon is liberal. After all the state DOES have a law against bestiality, so that argues against liberals being tolerant of it. --[[User:ColSharp|ColSharp]] 08:33, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::Since when do liberals obey the laws on the books in the first place? This photo [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:1915b7ec753fa9d0352885dc23da4469.jpg] is proof that liberals have no intention of obeying laws regarding littering. They trashed Washington D.C. ''when they got their way'', January 20, 2009. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:10, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:::There's a law in New Jersey about recycling, yet I know several conservatives who refuse to recycle. Why is this? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 13:26, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
:I am disappointed in you most of all Ed. Coming from wikipedia and being the first to jump on others for incivility you ignore when it comes to the ruling chaste of Conservapedia. You should be ashamed. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:48, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I think you assume entirely too much about my dispositions. You really don't know what extent I "cackle" or if I "cackle" at all. You also don't know what value I place on "winning". In fact, you don't even know if I am one person or a team. I/we remain inscrutable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:24, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
::::User:Conservative, this is getting silly. You wrote for instance:
::::::''Actually KhalidM, I have a very outgoing personality and a university professor friend of mine told me that I would make a great administrator because I can be very diplomatic. While I realize that I will never cultivate a large atheist or liberal fan club, I can live with that. Conservative 20:34, 5 October 2011 (EDT) ''
::::So, while your grammatical gender may be undetermined, your number isn't. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== King George I ==

The article of [[King George I]] was deleted as a ''creation of vandals''. On the talk page I read the comment of User:RJJense: ''I added much new text, all of which I wrote, and previously posted on Citizendium.'' I looked up the article at Citizendium and it seemed to be quite informative - certainly not vandalistic! Could it be restored? I'd like to insert a valid link into [[elector]]s.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::I restored the last version by RJJense. I feel confident that his last version was a good article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:34, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks - it really seems so! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

=="New Ordeal"==
Hello, I noticed that you placed the quotation marks around the term "New Ordeal." As you have probably noticed I have been attempting to fix that article. Quite frankly, the article is pretty bad to start with and several of the references that prior authors cited have nothing to do with the topic. Do you know if there is procedure in which this article may be recommended for deletion? --[[User:Padams|Padams]] 15:33, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:Better to mark it as an essay. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

== Block of AugustO ==

I looked at [[Conservapedia:Editor's_guide#If_you_get_blocked]]:

''If you get blocked, it's probably because you (1) broke the rules and (2) ignored hints, requests and/or warnings. So the first thing you should do is review your communications with others here, particularly those who are admins. Have you been trying to get along by following our practices and supporting our goals, or have you been trying to change our ways? If you are new here, it's best to go along to get along. After you have contributed a lot, we'll be more likely to listen to your suggestions, but breaking the rules will just end up with eliminating you from the project. ''

::*I can't think of any rule which I broke
::*I was requested to ''to do some charitable work somewhere instead''. I'm already engaged in such work, so this doesn't apply...
::*I don't try to ''change our ways''. I try to correct factual errors (e.g., ιδού can be translated as ''at this moment'' or that it is right to call ''Carolus Martellus'' the grandson of ''Carolus Magnus''.)

''Perhaps upon reflection you may realize that you'd rather be part of the project than insist on your own way. You might want to apologize and get unblocked. ''

::*I don't insist on my own way and I apologize if anyone feels insulted by my criticism.

''If you want to discuss your block, '''do not create a new account'''. Rather, use one of the following methods to appeal the decision (listed in order of preference). ''

::*Here, I obviously failed.

1. ''Contact the person who blocked you (see below).
::*tried
2. ''If you get no reply after a reasonable amount of time, you may contact any Administrator.
::*tried
3. ''Email cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com giving the name of the Administrator or editor who blocked you, and the date, and it will be forwarded on to them.
::*tried

''If you contact more than one person about this, please do them the courtesy of letting them know who else you have tried contacting. ''
::*This should be obvious from the header of my emails.

''Contacting an Administrator or editor can usually be done by one of the following methods: ''
*''Use the "Email this user" link in the toolbox. This, however, will only work if both you and the Administrator or editor have enabled this on your/their respective accounts.
*''The Administrator or editor may have provided an email address or other contact information (e.g. AIM) on their user page.

::*This section seems to be obsolete: ''email this user'' doesn't work for any of the administrators I tried to reach. And I couldn't get Ed Poor's email address via his user page. So we are in a [[Catch 22]] kind of situation...
::*I emailed to <code>aschlafy@aol.com</code>, <code>conservapedia@zoho.com</code> and <code>cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com</code>. I didn't get any reply (is 1-2 days a ''reasonable amount of time'' to wait? I thinks so...) to my short email which stated: ''I understand that my criticisms of CBP and the World History Lectures are quite unwelcome, but they are hardly trolling! I'd appreciate if you lift my block.''
::*So I decided to create a new account to appeal the block, hoping that the advice against this action is as obsolete as other sections of the ''editor's guide''.
[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:56, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::August, I think you should start a career in sales. You certainly have the persistence to be a good salesman. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:47, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Ed Poor, the block of AugustO is now more than a week old. I tried to reach you via various channels - could you please lift the block as the stated reason ("trolling") doesn't apply? [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:09, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

:Please get a [[writing plan]] from him and get it to me, and I'll consider it. Meanwhile, any sysop is free to unblock him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:01, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
::Is that any official Sysop, or anyone with Block rights? I'd be happy to unblock Mr O so that he can post his writing plan.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:25, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
:::On second thoughts, perhaps I'll just go ahead. Please reverse my action if I'm overstepping the mark.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:33, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

*Thanks for the unblock!
*I read the article on the [[writing plan]], and I'll try to provide you with one. This would be easier if a ''sample plan'' were provided. But nonetheless, here it is:

Mainly I'm interested in the CBP. Mind you, I'm not ''Junker Jörg'', I'm not capable to create a translation on my own which stands for hundreds of years. But I think that translating the Bible in a group, and extensively discussing your work is a marvelous way to get a greater insight into the ''Book of books''. While doing so, I try to dig into what Conservative calls the ''ANE culture'', as you can see [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], where I try to shed light on timekeeping during the Roman empire.

When I came here, I thought that there would be a group of likewise interested individuals, but at the moment there seems to be only one other editor with similar interests.

As my approach to the CBP generates quite a few edits on talk-pages, I balance these with edits to articles. These tend to by connected somehow with my namesakes (August of Saxony, Ernest August of Hanover), the history - or just happen on pages where I read something which puzzled me :-)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== Abortion issue ==

It would be a great idea to merge the articles. In fact, if you were interested in expanding the article, I might be interested in helping.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:28, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, please help me organize this. We should give prominence to conservative views, but let's steer away from censoring liberal views. It would be nice if liberals could see '''why''' conservatives believe differently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:43, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::OK!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:48, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::I merged the articles and added a bit on abortion and political ideology. How is it?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:53, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

==Thanks for the change but==
perhaps it should be bed bugs (plural), and now when i make an edit and it goes thru, if i try to make another one i get "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it" but no one has. Going back to page and trying anew results in the same. 3.1: longetivity should be longevity.

Jesus is Lord, thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 07:58, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here ==

Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback [http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Panel_members.2C_please_give_your_feedback_below HERE]

Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:05, 16 November 2011 (EST)

:I have explained my ideas in private email to you and Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)

== a few messages to you ==

There are a few messages to you here: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Air_superiority [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:14, 26 May 2012 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for picking up some of my "wiki litter" that I left behind (redirects to non-existent pages). I will try to be more diligent as far as not littering in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:You're welcome. And don't bother yourself: it's better for you to focus your time on building the wiki, while less talented contributors like myself do the routine housekeeping.

:If I had your writing skill, I'd be making whole article like you do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:34, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

== A message to you from Cipe ==

Fixing a MediaWiki message:

Hello,

Could you perform the edit I described [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=992864#Edit_request here, on very bottom of the page]? I asked Aschlafly but he's probably busy now.

Best [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 15:33, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
::I know the basics of Wiki coding and not the advanced level coding. I would ask someone else. Try Ed Poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:32, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Unfortunately, I cannot edit Ed's talk page. Could you suggest someone different? Or message him?

:::The change is rather small and requires only copy-and-paste. More directly: you can copy contents of this: [[User:Cipe/MW_fix]] to: [[MediaWiki:Revision-info]]. Even if my suggestion is wrong, it can be reverted, so there is no danger. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 16:41, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Okay, I did it. But where can I see the results? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:53, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Thank you very much. You'll see it when checking older revision. Here is an example: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546].

I noticed that MediaWiki has a different message when you're checking current revision. I'll prepare fix in a moment. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:The message seems to have logged me out. I think it needs fixing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::I also got logged out, but only once. I can consistently see the new message now. Perhaps the software logs out when a edit to MediaWiki is made. Could you please copy [[User:Cipe/MW fix 2]] to [[MediaWiki:Revision-info-current]]? I promise it's the last change :) It is shown for a permalink to current revision. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:08, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I don't think that's it. I think you need to put the '''www.''' in front of '''www.conservapedia.com''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:09, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::::It seems to work. I can see the messages: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546 for past revisions] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=992065 for current revision]. Thanks for changing. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you for unlocking your talk page ==

I really appreciate being able to get in contact with you directly when the circumstances arise. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you ==
Now he can try to justify what he said about the article. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:29, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

== File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg ==

Do you think it would be appropriate to use this image in the [[Current TV]] article? It's already in Gore's main article, so why not include it in the article about his obscure TV network on channel 9800 on my TV? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== apology. ==

Hey, I just wanted to apologise for the comments I made related to you, they were impolite and unnecessary. I don't have anything against you or anything, I just posted something that I thought was relevent without thinking how it would be taken by anyone other than myself, as it happened they were rude and quite personal. I acknowledge that I behaved quite badly, and in future I will try to avoid giving you, or others, offense. So..... virtual handshake?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 06:18, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

:Oh, don't be so dramatic. Just comment on the articles and issues of the day, and forget about personalities. That's how this project's supposed to run. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
::lol. Nah it's difficult to tell over the internet how people are reacting, so for all I knew you could have been quite insulted or something, and I had to make sure that I was being very clear. Anyway, cool[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 01:03, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure you get it: We don't want personal remarks on this wiki, clear or not. You need to be clear only about one thing: what you intend to write about an article topic. You must not comment on other users in any way. Is '''that''' clear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== On Personal Attacks ==

Dear Mr. Poor,

As someone who has been the subject of personal comments (see [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987753&oldid=987715], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987827&oldid=987777], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987956&oldid=987955], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=990739&oldid=990566]), I would like to share my opinion on Conservapedia's policy on personal attacks.

I think it is very appropriate to make '''relevant''' comments on editing and other wiki behavior to determine what the best practices are with regards to editing and other actions and, if necessary, to instruct users who may not know better about such practices. For example, I have informed two administrators about redacting the automatically-generated deletion log entry to remove sensitive material. I have also asked one administrator to include source information in that user's uploaded images, requests with which this user has complied. Likewise, if someone has a habit of posting comments on talk pages without signing them, it is appropriate to inform them of how to sign posts. Further, if someone is about to violate 90/10, a warning is definitely appropriate. None of these have to do with the real-life '''personality''' that these editors, many of whom are brothers and sisters in Christ, have; these comments focus on on-wiki '''behavior'''.

Further, I think that if someone is going to make a statement regarding real-life facts or Conservapedia's commandments, policies, and best practices, it is appropriate to debate this statement '''without going into personality details'''. Such debate may very well include Socratic or rhetorical questioning as a argumentative device.

Of course, Mr. Schlafly is the owner of the site, so he has the final say in this, but I'm sure he would agree with what I have written. Although attacks on another editor's real-life personality should generally be removed, I do not see the need to remove good-faith debate and discussion over user '''behavior''' at Conservapedia.

Thank you for reading this. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:36, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:Yeah, thanks, Greg. If I err on the side of "absolutely nothing about the person" to an absurd point, please continue to help me out. I'm mainly opposed to comments like, "You're a jerk" or "I don't have to follow the rules."

:Nothing wrong with '''friendly''' personal comments, like, "Thanks for pointing out that a rigid, absolutist enforcement of the rules may not be wise." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Hey Ed ==

I saw your Arbcom case over at Wikipedia just today looking through for cases of bias there. :) Wikipedia's - nuts, huh? Lol. I ran into the Obama bias team over there in Scjessey, Wikidemon, and company, back in late 2009. It's become so hopelessly biased by now you've just got to laugh. They know they're keeping all controversy out of the Obama page and how biased they are, and don't care. Well, all my facts are at Conservapedia's services now. :) Anyway, just saying it's nice to see another ex-Wikipedian here I guess - hope we get some more! :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 01:15, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

==Tehpwn3r==
'User names based on your real name or initials are '''preferred'''' does not state that you will be blocked. [[User:Conservative|Also]].--[[User:Wishnaka|Wishnaka]] 19:51, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

*Inappropriate user name. It has been a general principle that one's user name be "based on one's real first name and last initial", though there are a number of reasons why that is not always practical. The point is that we don't like the kind of foolish "handles" that are often used in various blogs and social web sites. If you run afoul of this by accident, you will be asked to create a new account, and doing so will not be considered sockpuppetry. Of course, some user names are essentially just vandalism, and are treated that way.

== Randall7 ==

If you don't object, I suggest shortening his block to maybe 3 days. His remark, while rude and impertinent, did have some substance, and a hard block doesn't serve to do anything but cause more unhappiness. Thanks for considering,
[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:48, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

:If you unblock him, you're responsible. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:54, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

::I recommend keeping the week. And don't > dont. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:01, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Thanks for pointing out the typo.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:35, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
==Michael Baumgartner==
Dear Mr. Poor,
Please do a careful side-by-side comparison of [[Michael Baumgartner]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054 the Wikipedia article]. I did a google search on "Michael Baumgartner" and came up with a number of sources including the Wikipedia article. I took notes from all of the sources, and wrote a new article based on my notes. I honestly believe that the article uses a different set of sources, covers ideas in a different order, and covers the topic differently than Wikipedia. Please take another look, and if you agree, please restore [[Michael Baumgartner]]. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:05, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
*I understand the workload you face. Could you please look at the article and reconsider? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:51, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
*:Already restored in good faith; I trust you, and I'm not going to compare it closely. I'll leave that to others. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:54, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

== My condolences ==

On the death of the Rev Dr Moon. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 18:54, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
==Thanks==
Thanks for the welcome. I wonder if you could help me. I tried [[Special:MovePage/William. J. Fulbright]] but apparently I don't have permission. The page should be at [[J. William Fulbright]], the name of the founder of the Fulbright scholarship program.
:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:26, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== Sun Myung Moon ==

You changed the first sentence of the protected article on [[Sun Myung Moon]] from the present to the past tense. Could you take care of the rest of the article, too? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:35, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
*Feel free to take care of that yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:01, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
::I took care of it. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:21, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Thanks to both of you! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:32, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

== Requesting Assistance ==

Mr. Poor, I'm relatively new here and don't completely know my way around. Would you please look at my comment concerning [[Talk:American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel|American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel]]. If my view is in line with the site, I'm quite certain that a template or procedure is needed at this point. If my views are not in line with the site, please feel free to remove that comment as you see fit. You seem experienced here, so your guidance is requested. --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] 00:03, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

== [[Psychological manipulation]] ==

I've noticed that you moved/redirected the above article to [[Essay: Psychological manipulation in the Bible]] on grounds "not a general article; case study uses a Bible story". I've got somewhat confused about this step, because IMHO the article is general and only the case study section itself contains a "Bible story". In fact the rest is a combination of various sources, some of them far from having anything to do w/ Bible at all. I was by far not completely done with that article and now I actually do not know how to continue working on it. It says now "This Is An Original Work. Contributors should add their signatures to the end section. If published, a notice will be posted and, if desired, contributors will be recognized." but that was not my idea at all, I would be more than happy if anyone could help to extend that, in my opinion, general article. If I could suggest anything then I would like to suggest to move only the 'case study' section to the essay realms and keep the rest as general article with hyperlink to that essay in appropriate, perhaps 'See Also' section. I also deem as deficiency that article does not appear in the Psychology category now, I believe it belongs there.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:35, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

==[[Objections to evolution]]==
As for your rationale for redirect on 'Objections to evolution', namely "I thought we already had plenty of articles opposing the Theory of evolution", I agree with you that "we have", but still would dare to oppose the redirect on grounds that 'Objections to evolution' is an article that brainwashes people at WP and enjoys special defence by witch-hunters who heavily suppress any different points of view there thus I believe it is of significant importance to have available alternative view on the same topic under the very same title.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:50, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

== Quote Templates ==

I was doing some ''random page'' editing and found that there was a whole load of quote templates you created a while ago that link to nowhere and nothing seems to link to them. It seems the template for linking these quotes never got off the ground. I'm proposing that these either be deleted or put into some sort of quote page as I don't think there much use at the moment (except for possibly taking up server space). Kind Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 02:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

==[[Unificationism]]==
I am not surprised to see you make changes to the Unificationism page in defense of your church, but why did you remove the part in which Moon told an interviewer, "God is living in me and I am the incarnation of himself." "The whole world is in my hand and I will conquer and subjugate the world." [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19459920?print=true]

Are you saying the BBC made that up? [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:23, 14 November 2012 (EST)

:You can put that back in. Sorry for the delayed answer; my day job keeps me pretty busy.

:Be advised, though, that Rev. Moon himself disputed the ''conquer and subjugate'' quote, telling Newsweek interviewers that he had been quoted out of context. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:35, 20 November 2012 (EST)

== Way to stop the spammers ==

From Aschlafly's talk page
Yesterday after I prayed an idea came to me (most likely from god) to stop the spammers from registering the spam accounts. If we can move away from user captcha and instead use a question that requires some knowledge (for example what team does tim tebow sit on the bench for or which team did he turned around) as the spambots will be completely flummoxed by this. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:16, 19 November 2012 (EST)

:The questycaptcha is excellent for this purpose. It stops ocr bots, and most paid spammers. The code would be:

require_once( "$IP/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php" );
$wgCaptchaClass = 'QuestyCaptcha';
$arr = array (
"A question?" => "An answer!",
"What is this wiki's name?" => "Conservapedia",
'Who is Tim Tebow' => 'An athlete',
foreach ( $arr as $key => $value ) {
$wgCaptchaQuestions[] = array( 'question' => $key, 'answer' => $value );
}
Which you would place in /rootfiledirectory/localsettings.php[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:54, 19 November 2012 (EST)''

: Given your considerable experience in operating and maintaining wiki's like Wikipedia and convservapedia, do you think you would be able to implement this ? Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 05:12, 23 November 2012 (EST)

==A serious Biblical matter==

Aschlafly wrote the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space ([[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). First he wrote:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.'''"}}
[[User:Iduan]] toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it'''."}}

I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.

I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.

I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person '''in a Biblical matter''' (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:26, 25 November 2012 (EST)

:If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:37, 5 December 2012 (EST)
:*''"Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? "'' As I tried to convey with the phrase "this wouldn't have been to problematic", there is nothing wrong with the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. But I think it ''is'' problematic that the ''insight'' of the essay spills over into a page in the main space, i.e., [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], and becomes a ''fact'' during this process.
:*''"If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree."'' It's the other way round: stating the ''insight'' in an article in the main space without making it clear that the only source for this idea is Andrew Schlafly is lending it an improper credibility. If you read an unsourced, unmarked statement in an encyclopedia, the reader generally takes it as a kind of common knowledge, even more so if he is e.g., a high-school pupil.
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:28, 6 December 2012 (EST)

Conservapedia is a mix of opinion and fact. Each is clearly marked. Talk pages are filled with unsourced claims, and we make very few efforts to police such talk.

If there is currently an unsourced, unmarked statement in an article that needs attention, please point it out to me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:09, 12 December 2012 (EST)

:Thank you - if unsourced, unmarked statements are reintroduced into the article, I'll point them out to you! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 12 December 2012 (EST)

== Hello ==

Im new here and need some help. I figured I would go to you since you seem very involved in the community. I recently tried to instate an article about R*tional Wiki and suddenly it was deleted. I thought since we had an article about Wikipedia that we could write about wikis. I also noticed that it had been deleted several times by the same people. Why? The words are spam filtered to. I feel that we need to write about the faults and propaganda of this completely biased website. Not to mention they completely badmouth you in the most rude ways. Please help...--[[User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 14:18, 31 December 2012 (EST)

Talk:One-world government

2012-12-31T19:06:35Z

Colesmithsayshi:

It's the 'Book of Revelation' not 'Revelations' --[[User:Spinnydizzy]] 08:53, 09 March 2010 (GMT)

:Yes. And the reason you couldn't remove the "s" at the end of the link is? There was a re-direct in place since 2007 for anyone searching with the wrong name. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:11, 9 March 2010 (EST)

Sorry - I didn't realise I could amend specific entries. --[[Spinnydizzy]] 14:45, 09 March 2010 (GMT)

I apologize but this article seems to be leaning on the side of a conspiracy theory. Yes as a definition this article would be fine to have, but what is written suggests some kind of plot.--[[User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 14:06, 31 December 2012 (EST)

Talk:Global warming

2012-12-31T17:24:47Z

Colesmithsayshi: /* Facts */

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]]

== 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)

== 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}}

Talk:Global warming

2012-12-31T17:23:11Z

Colesmithsayshi: /* Facts */

Talk:Global warming

2012-12-31T17:20:35Z

Colesmithsayshi: /* Facts */ new section

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]]

== 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)

== 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)