Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Slavery

2007-12-25T05:39:56Z

Creationist: The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1807, however slavery was not abolished in the Empire until 1832.

Why is there no reference to Biblical slavery apart from the captivity of the Jews in Egypt? I know that the enslavement of others by the Jews is controversial (in that the Bible doesn't seem to "condemn" the practice, but I'm sure there are good reasons why either I'm wrong in that or for God's overlooking the practice.

In any event, it is a debate I often have with moral relativists and I was hoping to find something about it here in my own (Christan) people.

: I agree completely. I have posted several Biblical references. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 01:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"ancient Egypt, where Hebrews were slaves."

There's absolutely no historical evidence for this outside of Exodus.

*The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Chronology==
Is there a particular reason that it goes ancient, modern, biblical? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:37, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abomination ==

Can't anyone fix this page? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Is this a joke? ==
I mean. Nothing is cited. And the whole thing is a big, fallacious argument in favor of slavery. - [[User:Moriarty]]
*Did you not see my note, about your post? If you think you are up to it, fix it! That is what a Wiki is for. --~ [[User:TK|SysopTK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I started by deleting the parts about slaves having free housing, food and health care. As an administrator you might want to delete things like that a little quicker because they make this website look alot like some of the white supremist sites. Hopefully, not what you want.
-Gasmonkey

== Recent Removal of Bible passages ==

MountainDew, could you please explain the justification for deleting the quotes from the Bible regarding slavery that were recently added by Spoon.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 06:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The presence of verses in the bible which appear to support slavery in the most direct interpretation is an embarassment to Christianity, but ignoring them is dishonest and will not make them disappear. I think we should keep them, but see if we can find some anti-slavery NT quotes too. - BornAgainBrit

*And you feel, either of you, that biblical quotes are so important in an encyclopedia, explaining slavery to contemporary users, how? Contrary to what you seem to think, this is not the Bible Encyclopedia, but the Conservapedia. MountainDew is a Sysop here, like myself, and is charged with editing and keeping entries on track, and fair. Maybe you guys should spend at least some time researching the slave trade, and maybe contemporary slavery practices, like the White Slave Trade, and that would be most helpful to this page. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 15:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My question for MountainDew was because he ''only'' removed the Bible passages which appeared to justify the slave trade and kept in only those passages which appeared to condemn it. If he had removed all of the passages I would not have had a problem. You said yourself that the job of a SYSOP is to be fair, that edit was not. For me the Bible has nothing to do with my opinions on the slave trade (in case I need to say it - it is repugnant to me), but exactly because he is a SYSOP I assumed that they Bible entries were wanted here.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, ''unlike some users'', we are concerned with the article as a whole, not just matters of religion. Since the Bible does not support slavery, but merely recognizes conditions as they were at the time, it would be unfair to use the Bible to justify any form of salvery. What was that bit about rendering unto Caeser? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: As I tried to imply, I do not see a reason for there to be ''any'' Bible passages in this article. But if there are any, then they should show how it was from both sides of the argument, i.e. the article should be fair - look at [[User_talk:MountainDew#Spoon|this]] exchange regarding [[User:Spoon]]'s posts - cherry-picking what you want or don't want should not be an option and I wanted to question [[User:MountainDew]]'s employing of this tactic. I'd remove all passages but I assume that they'd be reverted. I agree with you that the Bible cannot be read with a 21st century morality. My vote is for the creation of a new article on "Slavery in the Bible" if anyone wants one. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
*I see where you are coming from, however I am loath to keep making pages just for religious zealots (and their anti-religion counterparts), for every article in the Conservapedia. Since 99% of the humans on this planet are not in favor of slavery, I don't see a need to "balance" such things. Slavery is against the wishes of God, and most all of his children, to put it in a religious parlance. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fair point, well made. Can we remove the Bible passages from the article? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*I think we can remove anything that represents the Bible and/or God is in favor of Slavery, and leave the Biblical support against slavery. As I said, there really isn't a legitimate argument in favor of slavery, so no need to have a "balance". And if someone is in favor of it, they need to find another site. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

#Balance or not, those arguments are amoung the most liked by anti-christian debaters. Im sure you have seen how much they love to point to one verse or another of the OT and declare 'God is a brutal oppressor!' You can ignore them on the grounds that noone today agrees with them, but they still remain right there, printed in every copy of the old testament. And they ''were'' used in support of slavery, once. Really, what type of Christian chooses to just ignore a verse because it is unpopular? The appropriate response is not to remove these quotes, but to write an argument that Christianity does not support slavery. Optionally, moving them to a 'slavery in the bible' page may be a good idea too. - Suricou

*Slavery, what it is, and it's history, is not a biblical discussion! This is not the Religiouspedia. It is the Conservapedia, one where, '''when it is appropriate''', will not discount religious or conservative thought. There isn't a valid argument in favor of slavery that I can think of, so the point of including thoughts that are pro-slavery here would be what? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::But if it's not a Biblical discussion, why are you so against either removing the section on "slavery in the Bible" or adding to it those references which seem to support the notion of slavery? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 19:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*(Faints dead away) Why am I against? Aaarrrrgh! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please answer my question. You said that slavery is not a Biblical issue (and I wholeheartedly agree) yet you support having ''some'' references to slavery in the Bible in this article? Those are two contradictory positions. That is my problem and that is what I am asking you to explain. Put it another way: If you are going to have the facts about "Slavery in the Bible" in this article, then have ''all'' of the facts. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 20:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*You don't understand that some of us are actually working, and I was in a meeting. Now, I am done. Your mistake is thinking there are contradictory positions, or that for purposes of this article, there needs to be. I submit there isn't a valid intellectual or moral argument in favor of slavery, therefore one doesn't need to present arguments from the Bible that might seem to endorse it, since all Biblical Scholars I have read have said it doesn't. Therefore biblical quotes that make it clear slavery isn't "right" can and should be included. Am I being clear enough?

::I didn't understand why your previous response didn't answer my question, not that you didn't respond. Basically the passages from the Bible has no place in here unless you put in ''all'' the passages from the Bible. But enough. I'm done arguing about this.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 07:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*You just don't want to get the response is all. A closed mind isn't pretty. If one is free from having to present "another side", as there isn't a logical or moral argument in favor of slavery, then we don't have to present all quotes from the Bible, especially those that laymen misunderstand, and biblical scholars assure us don't mean what most think they do. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 08:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It is not about the position vis a vis the morality or otherwise of slavery. That is most definitely not in question. It's a bigger problem, and what I've been driving at all along. If we don't need the Bible to help our argument against slavery (and i'm pretty sure we don't) then there is no place for "Slavery in the Bible" to be part of this article. '''But''' if you '''are''' going to have bible passages then you are duty bound to present '''all''' of the sources if this is going to be a complete, accurate section (which I still maintain has no place in this article). It's about academic rigour - you can't just cite things you like from a document and ignore things you don't. This is '''very much''' independent of the argument for or against slavery (as I've stated earlier, there is no argument), it's a matter of principle. "The whole Truth and nothing but the Truth" eh? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, I've got it. Only when using scripture must one apply academic rigor. And of course encyclopedias in the UK would include *ALL* passages, and never edit for length, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stop being facetious. When using '''any''' source we must apply rigour. Also, if you're going to misinterpret what I said as an attack and then attack in return, at least get your facts straight. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:51, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion==

I've certainly seen evidence that ancient slavery was qualitatively different from American slavery, not least because a) slaves could readily achieve manumission b) slavery was not racially specific c) slavery was accepted practice, and without controversy. However, the fact that the Bible addresses (and regulates) slavery is an example of God's wisdom and propriety, because He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity. Furthermore, confusing ancient slavery and the contemporary consensus on slavery is not accurate, and doesn't represent the Truth well. Finally, ancient slavery was much more like indentured servitude (which is not an inherently evil practice, and might be seen as similar to outsourcing or sweat shopping) and shouldn't be confused with the percieved excesses of Confederate American practice. [http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/431/431_08_Racism.shtml] For these reasons, I think the Biblical Record on this issue should be embraced. There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

"Perceived excesses of Confederate American practice"-This implies that the excesses were only perceived not real. Is that what you mean?

:: My read is that the Bible provides support for slavery, either in ancient or "modern" contexts. Whether or not that's a good thing, is a separate matter. [[User:JohnJones|JohnJones]] 09:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
*I think there is some confusion as to what Slavery was in the US South, then. The Slave Trade of the 1700's was racially specific only by the fact that the traders found a bountiful supply of people in Africa to take. It wasn't that they set out to capture only Black people, they were opportunists. Arguing who was "better" to their slaves isn't exactly admirable. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] spake thus: '''"There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom."''' Unless, of course, one is a slave. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I am joking here. Paul readily identifies himself as Jesus' slave more than oncest. I believe there is no shame in that. Forgive me if my comment above made light of your observation or opinion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Even about dire subjects and times, it is good to keep a sense of humor (humour). :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Completely. I actually thought DunsScotus was serious (albeit scary and serious) before I read that. That's totally cheered me up. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] said "He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity." That would imply that it's possible to have ''good'' slave-owner activity, a point which I would dispute most strenuously. If there's something more immoral than owning a human being, I haven't heard of it (and before anyone jumps in with examples of other kinds of heinous behavior, I submit that there are any number of ''equally'' immoral activities).
:[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:58, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know whether or not slavery is inherently wrong, but I ''do'' know that there is no such thing as one sin being more wrong than another; it is either wrong or it isn't, wrong doesn't come in degrees. James 2: 10-11 says: ''"for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, 'Do not commit adultery', said also, 'Do not kill'. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::Imagine it's the year 3000 B.C. .... now, to satisfy your morality, what would you propose in a social system to replace jails and prisons with, considering they didn't exist to handle common drunks and thieves in those days? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:01, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not an allegedly omnipotent and omniscient deity, so I don't feel too ashamed of not being able to whip up a solution off the top of my head. Besides, it's not like they didn't have other punishments available, from flogging to fines. The notion of one person owning another is inherently immoral, IMO.
:::Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible.
:::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::What I am saying is reference to your personal "morality" is a pretense, and doesn't add anything to this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Why the quote marks around "morality?" What moral code does not abhor slavery?
::::::Well duh, this article states, "''Slavery is also referenced, permitted and regulated in the Bible"'' [[Slavery#Slavery_in_the_Bible]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That doesn't speak well of the Bible, does it?
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I wasn't referring to my "personal" morality, but to every moral code of which I'm aware. I know no Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or other believer (or atheist, for that matter) who considers slavery to be anything but immoral.
::::::Sure, since we all hold enlightened, rational views now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Whereas the Almighty doesn't? I'd think that the source of all morality would be expected to abhor slavery. If that's not so, then this raises several interesting ethical problems. Outside the scope of this article, of course, but serious problems nonetheless.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I thought this was ''Conserva''pedia: I didn't expect to find some kind of flexible ethics presented here. Perhaps I was wrong.
:::::I answered your question, incidentally: I notice you didn't answer mine.
:::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 08:24, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::I'm assuming your question is, ''"Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible."'' Let me answer a question with a question: Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons that thievery, drunkenness, prostition, and all petty crimes becomes morally defensible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You're still ducking my question. Thievery and other crimes (I see no objective reason for either drunkenness ''per se'' or prostitution to be illegal) do not become morally defensible in the absence of prisons or other means of correction. However, that does not address my point. If you don't have any means of retribution besides slavery, then the solution is obviously to find other means, not to endorse slavery as morally acceptable.
:::::::I can see that this discussion is not going to be fruitful. Anyone who endorses slavery for any reason is clearly beyond any kind of appeal to ethics. I believe I'm done with this organization, which is too bad, because there's a certain amount of promise here.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::The problem can be understood as a simple economic one; an individual, in the year 3000 B.C., who would qualify for what we call today "repeat offender" status, i.e. he/she has been caught countless times in dishonesty, that is to say, stealing, so that no one would trust the individual to hold a job. This "incorrigible" in question has an immediate problem, i.e. finding tonites dinner. Now, while petty thievery may not be a capital offense warranting death by stoning, nonetheless, watching the pitiful thief waste away and starve to death evoked certain innate feelings in onlookers. Thus slavery came about, in the absence of a taxpayer funded universal state Corrections System. To pretend this social system which evolved offends your sense of "morality" is ludicrous, unless you can present some alternative theory of a social system ancients should have pursued that would have provided tonites dinner to prodigals incapable of providing it for themselves.

::::::::As the first poster in this subhead pointed out, slavery did not come into existence as a system of racial oppression, although after being in existence for some time, and being common to all societies and cultures, it did evolve into such. Prisoners of War, for example, always ended up being slaves. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::So economics trumps morality?
:::::::::This is ridiculous. I can't believe I'm having to oppose slavery on "''Conserv''apedia." I'm cancelling my account, and you may sit and defend slavery to your heart's content without me.
:::::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 09:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::No one is "defending slavery"; we are seeking an accurate understanding of (a) what it is, and (b) how it came about. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't say that giving criminals forced labor is necessarily a bad thing. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==West vs. Islam==

I daresay the Western world was more keen on abolishing slavery than the Arab or Islamic world. Nowhere in the Christian West is there any more slavery. The [[Sudan]] still has slavery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Slavery was not abolished in Saudia Arbaia until 1962; a slave market 40 miles outside of Mecca was finally shut down. Many "pilgrims" to the Holy places ended up their when they didn't have the money for a round trip ticket and got busted shoplifting or whatnot to get enough money to return home. This seems to be a tradition that goes ''way'' back in Islam, and one reason [[Osama bin Laden]] cites for Western influence on Islamic traditions. The slave market was shut down, coincidcentally enough, at the same time Saudia Arabia gained independent status in the IMF & WTO to conduct its own affairs, rather than be the stepchild of the Great Britain or the US. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Therefore, all true Christians should support slavery as an institution. ==

This should be removed because it is offensive to many true Christians, and it truly makes this site look like a complete joke.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was, the troll indefinitely blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
=="Slave owners in the Southern states"==
I think we need a citation for the general statement, "Slave owners in the Southern states cited Ephesians 6:5". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thank You, this article got me thinking==
This article demonstrates the wonderful thing about conservipedia! I never realized that even my reading of the bible was corrupted by the liberal thought I've been force fed (despite having conservative parents). This article, in laying out the biblical passages on the subject clearly, made me realize that slavery isn't NECESSARILY all bad. Of course, I still think slavery of G-d fearing Christians is appalling, if they are determined slaves just because of the color of their skin. But because liberals decietfully used the obvious immorality of that to discount all slavery, even though G-d plainly wills it, I was even tricked into thinking all slavery was bad.

I had read those passages before of course, I just sort of ignored them, because they made me anxious. I didn't know how to reconcile it with the force-fed liberal ideas on slavery, that ignorantly lump all slavery together with Southern slavery. I never realized how much of a pernicious influence liberal ideas could have on even me. I never even knew any liberals growing up! To think, Satan's trickery could be so wily as to actually instill ideas in me that make me anxious when reading G-d's word.

Is there any movements to reinsitute slavery properly? I mean, I know that we have so much to battle right now, abortion, and secularism in general. But it just seems so wrong that a few impure slave-owners could tarnish a biblical institution. Its hopless right now, we are so embattled, but maybe in a few hundred years we can return to a biblical way of life. And if we are biblically consistent--e.g. opposing abortion, demanding Christianity for citizenship, calling for the institution of slavery--then maybe people will see that and have more respect for our movement.

Could the article have more on the virtues of slavery? Surely there has to be some commentary on it somewhere. Being a biblical institution it has to serve a purpose. And for those of you that say "it only applied in ancient times" I say how dare you insult G-d. He's omniscient, which implies what was right then was right now, or else He would have told us to change. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 13:53, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:Let me present a theory: perhaps biblical references to slavery simply mirror the historical accuracy of the bible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:45, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Yea, thats how I "reconciled" it with my liberal indoctrination too. The fact that I thought it had to be reconciled is a bit disturbing to me. I was obviosly led astray.
::Its clear from the passages that it explicitly lays out laws regarding slavery. If G-d wrote about it, it must be a pure and beneficient institution, and therefore should be reestablished. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 18:35, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::God wrote about incest and bestiality, too; does that mean incest and bestiality are pure and beneficient? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::::You know what I meant. G-d laid out laws to INSTITUTIONALIZE slavery. So as an institution it must be pure and beneficient. G-d specifically forbade both bestiality and incest. Yea, obviously because the bible talks about, say, unbelief, doesn't mean unbelief is acceptable. You must have known what I meant? Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 21:05, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don't know that God institutionalized slavery, in fact, it appears God was a lone voice for slave-rights at the time. Master's thought they owned the man body and soul, God appointed specific time served remedies, and protections against things like putting out a slaves eye. God never mandated slavery, it was a man made solution for dealing with sin; God just prevented human rights excesses by the slave owners.

:::::In point of fact, strictly speaking, the Bible actually teaches that we all are slaves, either slaves of Christ or slaves of sin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As I've just started to make a bit clearer in the article, biblical "slavery" and modern slavery are two quite different things. The Bible does "endorse" slavery at least to the extent of regulating it, but not in the sense of endorsing what is commonly understood as slavery now. And yet, it's a "liberal" (antibiblical) tactic to equate the two in order to discredit the Bible.

But more to the point, your view of God that he never has different requirements for different situations is unbiblical. God had Jonah go to Nineveh to tell them that they were doomed, but after they repented, He "changed his mind". That is, God's plan for the Ninevites was according to the particular circumstances, and when the circumstances changed, so did His plan.

Similarly, God required certain things of the Jews under the old covenant, and different things of Christians under the new covenant. We no longer offer sacrifices, for this reason, nor approach God via priests. Just because "slavery" was regulated and perhaps tacitly endorsed in Biblical times doesn't mean that we necessarily have to continue the practice today.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:Basically, slavery was a man-made invention to deal with debtors. A thief, when discovered, owed a debt to the victim. All sorts of other crimes likewise resulted in victims suffering losses to the perpetrators whom could be identified as debtors. There even arose a concept of the society as a whole being victimized by debtors (today, liberals debate so-called "victimless crimes", alleging for example marijuana use or prostitution harms no one, which is highly debatable). The debtors were in most instances incapable of repaying the debt, and barring a disincentive or deterant, were often repeat offenders. Thus the very basic notions of living in a civilized society came into play, i.e. (1) maintaining and protecting property rights, and (2) preventing criminals from gaining ascendency over persons who by habit were honest in dealing with their fellow human beings. If the debtor could not repay a debt, his person became the property of the creditor, who then was burdened with financing the slave-debtor's survival and maintainance until revenue produced by the debtor's labor could be sold to (a) repay the slaves maintaince, and (b) repay the old debt. This process could be short circuited by selling the slave himself to another financier (in much the same way bad debts are sold to collection agencies today at a discount), thus the slave trade came into existence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:00, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with both of you. The sarcasm of the first entry is thinly veiled. It pretends that slavery is a creation of God and that its "good points" outweigh its bad points enough that we out to revive it. Actually, no one today agrees with this idea outside of a few Islamic people in Africa (see [[Sudan]]).

::Rob's point is closer to the truth. Some people were indeed sold into slavery because of their own debts - or maybe those of their parents. Some of the [[human trafficking]] in modern East Asia stems from this: girls in Thailand or South Korea have been sold as [[sex slave]]s even as late as the 1980s. But most slaves are victims of kidnappers, marauders and war victors. They didn't become slaves due to any "debt" but were simply captured.

::The main motive for slavery is to not to fulfill God's will or to reclaim a debt. Rather it is to get something for nothing. It's plain selfish. And selfishness, i.e., taking advantage of another person for your own benefit, is the definition of [[evil]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:20, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Ed. What I was referring to was how slavery as an institution came into existence several milleniums ago, as we all know, written sources corroborating what I've said are problematic. And yes, slavery was complicated when a child was born of the parents of one or two slaves, who couldn't work off the debt in their lifetime. This ideas was carried over into [[feudalism]], were originally a feudal lord could grant a person relief from the elements, a job, and sustanance, and at the time was a solution to the problems of unemployment of homelessnes; but eventually children were born into the system, and didn't regard the "lord" of the estate in the same way the orginal serf did, that is, as the guy who offered safety, protection, a job, and dinner until the fruits of his labor could be sold at market to pay for his debts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:33, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::So G-d figured since Man was going to do it anyway, might as well set out rules for it, but not necessarily condone it? So G-d's approach to slavery is basically the same as the liberal approach to pre-marital sex?

::Wonderful people, I thought this was supposed to be a conservative christian encyclopedia, where G-d's word is heeded and given the utmost respect. Apparently I was wrong. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 17:33, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not unlike divorce; God hate's divorce presumably as much as slavery, yet allowed it because of man's sinfullness, stubborness, and hard heartedness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

== "[[Old Testament Era]]" ==

This phrase stood out to me as I was reading. What, may I inquire, is the "Old Testament Era"? To my knowledge, the Old Testament spans quite a stretch of history, so perhaps the phrase should be more specific. Unfortunately, I was at a loss with what to replace it. --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 11:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:It's a peculiarly Christian concept of history. Everything after Jesus was born is the New Testament Era; history stretching back from then to around the time Moses received the Law (and/or the Ten Commandments) is the Old Testament Era. Some theologians or historians might extend that back to the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - but it gets 'murky' back their.

:Anyway, it's obviously not a secular concept. Try [http://www.the-highway.com/law1_Wenham.html this reference]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:36, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately, I'm familiar with Christianity's dealing with the Old Testament uses (since we're not Jewish). My point was that "Old Testament Era" is unnecessarily broad and doesn't really define itself clearly; the provided link certainly did nothing to answer my question. There's also the issue that the time line between the end of the Old Testament and the start of the New is not unbroken. Other historical events occur, thus making the term "Old Testament Era" vague and useless in this context. I think it should be more definite or perhaps more reliant on concrete dates, etc. Of course, there's also the issue that there is obviously slavery in both the "Old Testament Era", "The New Testament Era", and the "Post-Testaments Era". --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 17:20, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I've changed it to "Under the Mosaic Law...". Better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
== Islam ==
Islam is exactly a place name, i.e, it means "The Realm of Peace." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:Begging your pardon but Islam translates into English as "submission" (i.e. submission to God).--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 22:53, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
::Islam is a contraction of "Dar al Salem" (Salem in Semitic languages means "peace") Dar al Salem is perpeturally at war with Dar al Harb, or the "Realm of Conflict,", i.e. those areas and persons who inhabit those areas outside Realm of Peace. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Begging your pardon again Rob, but you're incorrect. Please refer to http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Islam for the origin of the word.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 23:01, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
::::My humblest apologies for using Wikipedia as a source, and I pray you forgive me, and I issue all appropriate warnings about its veracity, etc., but its late at nite and I promise to do better next time. But let's look at WP's entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam#Dar_al-Islam here]:
:::::*Dar al-Islam (Arabic: دار الإسلام literally house of submission) is a term used to refer to those '''lands''' (emhasis mine) under Islamic rule. In the orthodox tradition of Islam, the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of peace and dar al-Harb, the house of war.
::::Ed. note: Tentative conclusion based upon a suspect source, (a) "peace" and "submission" have basically the same connotation in Arabic, and (b) this does not refer to a verb, but rather a domain, or place name. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:17, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:That might be the origin of the word [written before edit conflicts with Porthos and RobS], but in normal everyday use, it is the name of a religion, not a physical Earthly location. I tried to make a similar change, but was beaten to it by Samwell. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
::Modern [[nation state]]s, such as [[Saudi Arabia]], are entirely a Western Christian invention, probably dating from the time of Charlemagne's sons. Islam does not recognize Western Christian ascendency over Islam, and indeed views dividing Islam up into nation states by the British, French, and other European Imperial powers, as the root cause of their problems. Saudia Arabia is entirely a creation of Western Christendom; the Arabs refer to it as the Arabian Penninsula, really it proper name. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:03, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

*Dar-el-Islam = the realm of Muslims --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:15, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

RobS, is this now an academic argument about the meaning of the word, or are you trying to make a case that the article should revert to using "Islam" as a place? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Disregarding the non sequitur about nation-states, I think we can agree that Islam is not a geographical location any more than "Christianity" or "Buddhism" is. Regarding the words, "Islam" comes from '''الإسلام''', which translates ''directly'' to "submission". Dar al-Islam ('''دار الإسلام''') translates to "house of submission", as the term ''Dar al-Islam'' was used primarily ''after'' the advent of Islam as a religion. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 11:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
::I think you have it exactly incorrect; it is ignoring these facts is precisely the grievance that motivated [[Osama bin Laden]]. Islam is indeed a place name, while "Western Civilization" is the modern secularized term applied to what earlier documents refer to as "Western Christendom." None of the so-called "Islamic states" are indigenous creations. They all were carved out of Western [[spheres of influence]] from so-called "Western [[Imperial]] Powers."
::The original (primary source) Koranic language refers to Dar al Sa-lĕm, or the Realm of Peace, Abode of Peace, House of Peace, or other translated versions. The people of the House of Peace are called the "ummah", from which get we the "ummah of Sa-lĕm", or mu-sa-lĕm. Ĭ-sa-lĕm is itself a [[contraction]] (a contraction is like the word "can't"), Ĭ-sa-lĕm is a contraction of Dar-al-Sa-lĕm.
::However, now we have gone past the original primary source into a body of literature spawned by Koranic writing in a multitude of languages, this may be referred to as its "civilizational aspects," to use the term of recent origin my [[Samuel Huntington]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Clash_of_Civilizations]. What we are discussing here is contrasting civilizational idioms. But in short, ask any Muslim and they will tell you, Islam is primarily a place name, from which a civilization and religious faith also have grown out of. And the Realm of Peace is perpetually at war with the enemies of God, or the "faithless", also called infidels ("kufr", sometimes "kufir").
::The concept of [[nation state]] arose in the division of the land of the Franks afrer Charles the Great (Charle-Magna) most historians would probably agree. It is entirely Western, and Christian in both concept and origin. Nation states were imposed upon Islam, and the Arab nation, pretty much universally after the [[Treaty of Versailles]] (less then 90 years ago). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:16, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I did just ask a Muslim coworker of mine and she seemed pretty certain that Islam is not, nor ever has been, a place name.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:50, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
::::A disciple of [[Elijah Muhammad]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:56, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::No, her parents immigrated here from Pakistan apparently. She tells me she's Sunni by tradition.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:03, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

RobS, you didn't answer my question on whether you are still arguing for the article to revert to using Islam as a place. I'm gathering, however, that perhaps you are.

Even if you are correct (and I'm not convinced) that Islam is a place, then it appears that the argument really is that it is ''used as'' a place by Muslims. However, it is not used as a place by non-Muslims. So are you arguing that we should use it as a place in this article despite the fact that most of the readers of the article do not understand the word that way? Surely even if you are technically correct, we should use wording that the average student would understand.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:59, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:It is nothing I'd wrestle to the mat over, I understand it is more a "civilizational" idea, although sooner or later in several articles I'd like to make some of the points outlined above. But as to slavery in Islam, this article may need a whole subsection on it, (this is why I like just referring to it as Islam, and not "Islamic countries") because a very, very strong case can made that the annual worldwide pilgrimage to Mecca for the past 1400 has been intimately bound up with the slave trade.
:So, we have some nice controversies to look forward to, when I get the time. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:18, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

::Are there alternative terms that could be used, such as "Islamic communities", "Islamic areas", "Islamic societies", or something along that line? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::That's what is in there now, "Islamic countries", of course this then opens the debate, which ones? what about some "Islamic countries" that do have a modicum of multiculturalism? (Iran, Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia spring instantly to mind); then you have to debate the relative merits of each "Islamic [[nation state]]'s" involvement in human trafficing or the slave trade, and within which specific timeframe (i.e. after the "Islamic state" recieived so-called "independence"?, or the previous 1400 years?).
:::All this ignores the underlying idea that Islam for 1400 years did not have local prisons to incarcerate incorrible offenders, but rather Islamic communities along the pilgrimage route just sold off the town drunk to a passing slave caravan headed for Mecca where he could be resold at a higher price to someone rich enough to make the pilgrimage, and be resettled in some other part of the world (or more specifically, the Realm of Peace). The slave market at Taif, 40 miles outside Mecca, was not shut down until 1962, and only then under pressure from the International Chiristian/Jewish community that established things like the [[International Monetary Fund]] to manage world trade, so that the Saudi rule clique could represent themselves rather than be dominated by Western Imperial powers such as the British Empire or the United States.
:::This seemed to upset people like [[Osama bin Laden]], who feel the Saudi ruling clique has no legitimate title to being the Keepers of the Holy Places, and were only installed by this Western Chiristian and Jewish conspiracy against Islam (it is somewhat akin to having Muslims install their choice of the Roman Pope as the Vicar of Christ).
:::Bottomline, Islam condones slavery; and in fact, slavery has been a vital part of keeping social order in Islam for 1400 years. Only so-called "modernization", imported from the West, led to things like Abu Ghraib being built, and destroyed Islamic customs (one being, disposing of problem offenders in a commuinty to pilgrimage caravans headed for the slave market at Taif, rather that keeping them locked up locally).
:::Ahhh.... the march of progess. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:31, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::I was meaning that there may be a better alternative than "Islamic countries". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::IMO, "Islam" works best. There's no dispute its a cultural of civilizational entity within a certain large geographical space. And "Islamic law" tends to prevail over local national governments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:17, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::The point is that most people here do not think that "Islam" is an appropriate word to use here (even if technically correct), so the question then is which of several possible alternatives is best to use. It has been replaced with "Islamic countries", but that may not be the best alternative, and a different alternative term, such as "Islamic cultures" may be better. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:29, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

== Slavery is one of the less noble aspects of American history. ==

Isn't this the least noble aspect in American history? What aspect could be less noble than owning another man and his children?

== The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1807, however slavery was not abolished in the Empire until 1832. ==

The slave trade was abolished in the British Empire in 1807, however slavery was not abolished in the Empire until 1832.

What point is this sentence trying to convey?[[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 00:39, 25 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

Talk:Slavery

2007-12-25T05:36:55Z

Creationist: Slavery is one of the less noble aspects of American history.

Talk:Pennsylvania

2007-12-25T05:24:03Z

Creationist: Reference

I restored some of what the previous poster entered here (as well as sdding a few changes of my own). I am preplexed as to why his or her edits were reverted. They were factual and by no strech of the imagination could they be considered offensive. --[[User:Oldring|Oldring]] 09:13, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

== Reference ==

Benjamin Franklin helped write Pennsylvania's 1776 Constitution. In Frame of Government, Chapter 2, Section 10, it states: "Each member of the legislature, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration: 'I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and Punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.'"

Where is the reference for this quote? I have been a resident of Pennsylvania for 26 years and I have never heard this quote. It is a great quote and it made me happy to see it, but there was no reference to it and one is really needed.

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2007-12-25T05:20:47Z

Creationist: Phony soldier incident

Rush _was_ caught illegally scoring painkillers. Should we leave that out just because it 'looks bad'? Truth is truth, even when it's ugly. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: It's gossip. It's not educational. We're not Wikipedia where nearly every entry has some gossip in it. Feel free to see what other editors think, but that's my view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've got to wonder where the line is drawn for this. This site still needs so many fundamental topics covered, but since January there's been an article on Chappaquiddick. Still, CP doesn't want to include the dirty bits of people's biographies? Hunh.

::And before you say it, I'm no Ted Kennedy fan (if I had a vote in MA. I doubt I'd have ever voted for him), but I just about lost it when "Random page" led me that article. Where are the priorities? :p Anyway, the "gossip" argument doesn't hold much weight imo. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not gossip, it is part of his biograpghy. ref <http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/>

Yes, but it makes him look bad, therefore it lacks sufficient truthiness to be posted here. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would say it can be mentioned only because he talked often about illegal drug users on his show, so the irony is rather large. Also, it was in the news extensively. BUT, it needs to be dealt with factually, not emotionally from either side.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== First source ==

Could somebody tell me how the first source backs the statement? I couldn't find any mention of "Limbaugh" or "Franken" on that page... I left it in because I didn't dive deeper into the thread, but a quick explanation would be appreciated :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was Bill O'Rielly and Al Franken that clashed constantly?

==On painkillers==
Limbaugh himself admitted doing it, so it's not gossip. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parkinson's ==

The previous editor said that Fox's jerking actions were the results of his medication, not his disease. However, the citation itself says the exact opposite, stating that Fox often goes '''off''' of his medicine to make the symptoms more pronounced. Any assertion to the contrary of would need a new cite, one strong enough to disprove the citation offered (USA Today), common knowledge, and medical journals.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:For what it is worth, my grandfather suffered from Parkinson's. The shaking occurs because of the disease, not the medication.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::Absolutely, that's true. But Rush didn't know it, and claimed that Fox was faking the shaking by taking his medication. Completely wrong, and completely vile. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Denounced as a Witch? ==

Can anyone verify that? Took it out until someone can.

== Trivia ==

I removed the unsourced trivia (deaf in left ear, six toes, three divorces). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I agree with this removal. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 10:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Illegally" ==
It is a descriptive term—not a legal claim. For example, the article on Hitler says he “murdered” 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, should that be deleted because Hitler was never arrested? Or tried for murder? Likewise, in the Clinton article says he “committed perjury”, but Clinton was never arrested or tried for perjury (He was Impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but not convicted), should that be deleted? Of course not, nether should be deleted, the claims describe the facts not the legal situation. Here, what Rush did was illegal, though he was never charged—I see no reason to omit that fact.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is libel to say that someone committed a crime, when he was never convicted. Yes, those other pages should be fixed. Hitler is dead, and cannot sue. The Clinton page is wrong. Clinton was accused, but acquitted by the Senate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with your reading of libel law—it’s only libel (since we are talking about a public figure) if the person making the statement can be shown to know it was false. But, that aside, if you honestly believe the position you are advancing here, I have pointed out two major changes that need to be made and I urge you to do so (I will refrain from doing so, since I am not yet convinced by your position)—if your position is correct then there should be no major backlash.
::I maintain that, libel aside, if one breaks the law one has committed an illegal act, whether on not they were ever charged with a crime, and whether or not they are ever convicted. If that is correct, then the adjective belongs in the article, if it is not then it should be taken out of the article—I’ve yet to hear any argument that it is not correct. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Controversy section - how much should be kept or removed? ==
How is any of that information relevant or encyclopedic? I thought we were trying to avoid the gossip that is so prevelant on Wikipedia. I removed it, but some liberal agitator put it back almost immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 16:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:See [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] scandals the political personality is known to have been involved in—not just rumored to have been involved in—are considered appropriate content. Here, Limbaugh is known to have been involved in all of these scandals and has given comments on them, so they are not simply gossip and are considered appropriate content.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::<s>Don't misquote: it says 'non-gossip scandals'.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: "It's pure gossip. If I were to add a reference to a cigar in Clinton's article or Gore's son's pot arrest, you'd throw a fit and you know it.)" -- If Gore's son's arrest would be appropriate material, so would Bush twins being arrested for under age drinking[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_1_8/ai_78052874][http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1379000.stm]. Things the ''politician'' were involved in yes. Family members - no. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::So you would have no problem with me adding a cigar reference to Clinton's article?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Is that appropriately family friendly that should be read by a 12 year old? As it stands, the Starr report is blocked at the company I work at for "Erotica and Sex". I seem to recall that under the Communications Decency Act (granted, struck down) that the Starr report would have been considered an explicit document[http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=846]. Feel free to link to it, but I doubt such explicit material is appropriate here when other explicit material is blocked. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It would be no worse than the references to @n@l $ex found [[homosexuality|here]], which I have complained about in that talk page.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

When you read an article about a perversion, you expect to see references to gross or raunchy stuff. Not when you are reading the biography of a respected adult. Clinton and Limbaugh are respected adults (okay, maybe only liberals respect Clinton). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: The Oxycontin story is significant, but the other stuff is just stupid trivia. It is not a scandal just because someone criticizes him. Rush says controversial stuff every day. I say it should be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::Removed all but the pain-killer story. If we report every unkind remark made by politicians and pundits, we'll be swamped in gossip. Better to talk about the things he repeatedly says, like ''feminazi'' or ''talent on loan from God''.

::I don't really want to explain to my kids what a semen-stained dress is, or what Clinton and his girl intern were doing with a cigar. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Me either, and thanks to you and RSchlafly for making the right decision on how to improve this article.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::At the very least, Limbaugh’s repeated comments condemning illegal drug users should be restored to the Oxicoton controversy—otherwise it lacks context. It was the hypocrisy of doing what he had soundly condemned that made this scandal so big.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::The Viagra stuff is also a legitimate scandal—it involves illegal drug use just like the other one—and it is all the more relevant as it follows the Oxycontin scandal (illegal drug use after illegal drug use after criticizing illegal drug use is legitimate information). As far as the other two “Controversies” go—Allegedly attacking a 13 year-old child for who her parents are says as much about who Rush is perceived to be as the fact there is a newsletter named after him, and is relevant to understanding both why he and why talk radio are so controversial—the Michael J. Fox thing is probably relevant as the most recent time Rush made the national news (it was all over CNN, over and over and over again—in a very boring and monotonous way, but in a way that made national headlines that his other controversial statements don’t).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is not a forum for liberals to attack people they don't like with rumors and innuendo. Viagra is not an illegal drug, and Limbaugh was never arrested for being in possession of it. If you want to be a scandalmonger, feel free to take it to Wikipedia where it belongs.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Utilizing a prescription not made out to you is a crime—hard to prove, so no arrest, but, I think, relevant given his past drug abuse. I’d be happy to discuss the merits of my position with you, but if you insist on descending to ad hominem attacks, I fear that will be impossible.
::::My objection to Rush, by the way, is not a “liberal” one, I think he makes conservatives sound like school-yard bullies—and no one (or very few people) would vote for the school-yard bully—if I was a “liberal” I would love Rush the same way that most conservatives I know love [[Michael Moore]] (he makes liberals look so bad that it is easier to convince undecided voters).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not a scandal that Rush makes fun of people. Do you ever listen to his show? He makes fun of people a lot. I did revised the oxycontin paragraph. We really don't know that anyone did anything illegal, except that his housekeeper got immunity for something. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, I think there is a difference between making fun of politicians and a 13-year old child, but if you don’t that’s fine. (I don’t listen to his show anymore, because I find his “humor” offensive, and counter-productive.) What about the Viagra and the Michael J. Fox things? Also, the revised section on painkillers is, currently, miss-sourced. The link goes to the transcript of Rush’s admission that he had been abusing pain-killers which doesn’t support the vast majority of the claims in the paragraph it is currently the reference for (in fact most of the events in the paragraph it is the reference for occurred after the statement was made).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that it is tacky to make fun of a 13-year-old, but not a scandal. Viagra and Fox? Not scandals at all. Who cares? I wrote the painkiller stuff largely on memory. If I got anything wrong, please correct it. I didn't like the earlier text that implied that Rush had hired someone to buy illegal drugs for him. The charges were dropped. The prosecutor claimed to want to get him for "doctor shopping" anyway, and different offense. The prosecution appeared to be politically motivated to me. But I left that out. Try to stick to the facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::It all seems politically motived to me, except the inconsistency about the prescription pain-killers. Wikipedia recently beefed up their standards on "how much you can attack a public figure" in a biography article.

::Basically, people attack your character when they run out of ways to respond to your ideas. It's like an [[ad hominem]] argument. He insulted a kid, so his critique of feminism must be wrong. Should we attack Clinton's senate votes on the grounds that she abused FBI files or (may have) covered up the death of [[Vince Foster]]? I'd rather not.

::We should present verifiable (reliable) information about the careers and viewpoints of public figures. Well, that's only my opinion - I'm the new guy around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess I’m not seeing the same distinction you are—I’m more than willing to concede the point, but I’d like it if there could be clearer guidance on what counts as a “scandal” and what is “just gossip”. (I wouldn’t have bothered to defend the inclusion of these scandals for nearly as long as I have were I not concerned that their removal as “gossip” would get the people who added them (and I am one of those people) labeled as a violator of the [[Conservipedia Commandments]], or just as too liberal, and then banned—my inclusion of the Viagra information was (I assure you) in good faith, but, apparently, I was adding gossip— clarity is much needed here and would be much appreciated).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nobel Peace Prize nomination? ==

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html says:

:*Can I nominate someone for the Nobel Prize?

::If you are not invited you cannot nominate.

:*Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize?

::Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years.

:*What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?

::Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.

Although the Landmark Legal Foundation issued a [http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE press release] giving the text of a letter offering Limbaugh's name as an "unsolicited nomination," it does not give any evidence whatsoever that the Foundation, or Mark R. Levin, was invited to make any such nomination. If there was no invitation, there was no nomination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. Personally, I think Levin's use of the word "unsolicited" strongly suggests that he is not an invited nominator. The Nobel Foundation has a list of [http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html qualifications for nominators], and the only one I can see him as meeting as "directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes."

I think it's a (successful) publicity stunt to counter the (equally baseless) rumors that Al Gore has been nominated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. P. S. Google News search on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit&section=8 limbaugh nobel peace prize] only turns up four hits, none of them looking to me like a genuine news story. Two are from Rush Limbaugh's own website, one is about a (phony) "nomination" of Muhammed Ali, and one rambling essay that touches on Gore's rumored nomination and also mention Rush Limbaugh (not Limbaugh's nomination, just Limbaugh) separately many paragraph's later. '''If''' someone can find evidence that anything resembling a news source has reported this, a line could be added to the effect that "News sources have reported that 'Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.'" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Rush's "Nobel nomination" was by Mark R. Levin, aka F. Lee Levin ( who is a Limbaugh flunky ).

::If we include his <ahem> "nomination" we should also include Elvis' FBI badge. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Help! ==

<s>I tried to undo vandalism, but it was spread across two edits. Someone please revert!--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 13:59, 17 July 2007 (EDT)</s>
:Nevermind. I got it.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 14:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==Who's phony?==

Based on [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298858,00.html this] and other news stories, I'd say that Limbaugh was using the term ''phony'' ambiguously. But there are no grounds to suggest that he mean "all soldiers who oppose US military policy in Iraq".

He apparently had two other meanings in mind, although (unlike yours truly) he's not an expert on clarifying word meanings:
#a phony is a [[ringer]], someone who pretends to be representative of a typical person but has been specially selected, with the hope of swaying public opinion; or,
#a phony is someone who says something he knows to be false (also with the intent of swaying public opinion)

Reid correctly pointed out that Limbaugh used the same term for more than one soldier. But his error lies in concluding that Limbaugh had the entire "anti-war" population of soldiers in mind.

It doesn't make sense for Reid to condemn a remark (especially when it's only two words long, in an unscripted conversation). Now condemning an opinion which a speaker confirms and stands by is another thing. But Limbaugh has repudiated the meaning Reid attributed to him, so what's to condemn?

Only a chimera, an false image constructed for the single purpose of discrediting a man. And it's pretty clear that Reid is not after truth but about making Limbaugh shut up.

Democrats and Republicans should debate the issues; neither side should engage in [[ad hominem]] arguments. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:42, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Cochlear Implant ==

I'm not overly familiar with Mr Limbaugh, but he is a notable [[cochlear implant]] recipient[http://www.audiologyonline.com/news/news_detail.asp?news_id=432]. Is this worthy of mention? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 07:22, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed, I think it most certainly is. If you want, prepare a paragraph, and I can either open it for you to add, or paste it from here, crediting you. Whatever works best for you Ferret. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:20, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

::Given time zone issues, probably easiest if I leave something here for you to post. Many thanks TK.

Limbaugh is a sufferer of Auto-Immune Inner Ear Disease, a condition which leads to a profound hearing loss. In 2002 he became one of the highest profile people to receive a [[cochlear implant]] [http://www.audiologyonline.com/news/news_detail.asp?news_id=432], a device which can provide some deaf people with the ability to hear artificially.

== Rush Limbaugh on Paul Hackett ==

Paul Hackett is an Iraq War veteran who served in the U.S. Marine Corps as a civil affairs officer assigned to Ramadi. After he returned home, he ran as a Democrat in a special election for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District seat in August 2005, narrowly losing to Republican Jean Schmidt. On the day of the election, Mr. Limbaugh accused him of "hiding behind a military uniform" while "lying and denying his liberalism." Mr. Limbaugh claimed later in the show that Mr. Hackett went "to Iraq to pad the resume." -- [[Frey]] December 12, 2007 (Forgive me if this is inappropriate for the talk page, but it's relevant to Rush Limbaugh's attitude on certain things, and the article itself is currently locked from any additions.)

:I am thinking this might be more appropriate under an article on Paul Hackett. Rush Limbaugh, as a talk show host, talks on many people each day. I don't see this particular incident as standing out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:09, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Phony soldier incident ==

Phony soldier incident
CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.[4]
Here the caller is using the word real in the typical media way, distinguishing interviewees picked at random (as in a legitimate survey) from those specially selected to give predetermined views. The context is the liberal media's desire to portray the average US soldier as opposing administration policy or otherwise bad-mouthing the military.

There was not even a hint that the soldiers called "phony" were in any way not doing their jobs competent. The meaning of phony in this context was obviously "picked to give a predetermined" view.

A parallel can be found in the distinction between models and "real people" often made by photographers. Another example is employees to demonstrate a product vs. casual users or customers (real people).

In the street hustle of three-card monte, shills will place bets and give and receive money from the dealer, but it is all a sham. The shills are not "real people" (actual gamblers) but ringers.

Why is this here? This is the most irrelevant piece of information that I have ever seen on a biography on any website. Limbaugh has done many amazing things in his career and this piece of imformation is placed on his short biography. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 00:20, 25 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

Capital punishment

2007-12-25T05:06:58Z

Creationist:

'''Capital Punishment''', also known as the death penalty, refers to the custom of executing prisoners who are convicted of certain crimes. Such crimes are known as capital crimes, and tend to be grave crimes against persons (such as [[premeditation|premeditated]] [[murder]], [[rape]] or [[treason]]).

== In the world today ==
Of the main developed countries, only the [[United States]] and [[Japan]] use capital punishment. Several European countries (including all those in the [[European Union]]) and [[Canada]] have ceased the practice. For emerging countries, [[China]] uses the death penalty and in the non-developed world it is practiced in most Shari'a states (those whose legal systems are based on [[Muslim]] legal philosophy), as well as many others.<ref>EU: [http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in all Circumstances]</ref><ref>Encarta: [http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543496/Capital_Punishment_Worldwide.html Capital Punishment Worldwide]</ref>

According to officially released governmental figures, the [[liberal]] [[human rights]] organization [[Amnesty International]] estimates that Singapore has the highest execution rate in the world, at 13.65 hangings per 1,000,000 residents. Saudi Arabia has the second-highest rate, at 4.65 per 1,000,000. [[Human Rights Watch]], another prominent liberal organization, does not have any recent figures.

=== United States ===
Capital punishment in the United States is handled on a state-by-state basis; twelve states' laws do not allow for executions at all. Capital punishment is also used by the federal government.

[[Pennsylvania]] has hundreds of people on death row, though only three inmates have been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment laws, and all three essentially "volunteered" by dropping their appeals. In [[Texas]], one man has been on death row for 31 years.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deathrow28jan28,1,1271967.story?coll=la-headlines-nation</ref>
Appeals and stays of execution can create a backlog on death rows in many states.

Though the United States suspended the death penalty in 1973, it was reinstated in 1977. 65% of Americans believe putting someone to death for a crime is acceptable, according to a recent poll. But respondents were close to evenly split on whether they would prefer the death penalty (50%) to mandatory life in prison (46%). The death penalty is most favored by age 30+ males who are Caucasian and [[Republican]].<ref>ABC News/Washington Post poll: [http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/1015a3DeathPenalty.pdf Death Penalty]</ref>

Some studies conducted since the start of the new millennium have consistently shown a deterrence factor in the United States based on use of the death penalty. It has been calculated that each person executed saves the lives of anywhere from 3 to 18 innocent people.<ref>Studies: Death penalty discourages crime http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html</ref> However - other studies have shown as a whole, "death-penalty states" typically have higher murder rates than states that have outlawed capital punishment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=1705#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT|format=HTML|work=Death Penalty Information Center|language=English|title=Deterrence|accessdate=2007-08-21}}</ref>

==== Methods in the United States ====

[[Lethal injection]] is the official method of capital punishment in almost all of the 38 states that have the death penalty. A few states allow for other methods in some circumstances. [[Nebraska]] is the only state of these that does not have lethal injection. [[Electrocution]] is the official method of execution there. Several botched electrocutions in [[Florida]] in the 1990s have effectively put an end to the era of the [[electric chair]], which was the most common means of execution in the United States before 1972. In addition to these two methods of execution, lethal gas, hanging, and shooting have all been used at least twice since 1977. Both firing squads were conducted in [[Utah]], most recently in 1996. The three hangings took place in [[Washington]] and [[Delaware]], most recently Billy Bailey's 1996 hanging in Delaware. The [[gas chamber]], which has been abandoned because it has been found to normally lead to slow, gruesome deaths, has been used in [[California]], [[Arizona]], [[Nevada]], [[Mississippi]], and [[North Carolina]] since 1977. Walter LeGrand's 1999 execution in Arizona's gas chamber will almost certainly be the last of this type.{{fact}} The United States has never used the [[guillotine]], which was very popular in [[France]]. The last use of the guillotine in France was in 1977. Thereafter, capital punishment in France was abolished.

===Canada===
[[Canada]] does not employ capital punishment, and it has not been a possible sentence in Canadian civilian courts since 1976.

Canada long employed capital punishment as a punishment for [[murder]] or [[treason]], typically executing prisoners by [[long drop hanging|long drop]] [[hanging]] in the case of civilians, and by [[firing squad]] in the case of soldiers or other military. (In particular, 25 soldiers were executed for various crimes during [[World War I]].) Canada had several notorious executioners, particularly [[Arthur B. English]], also known as "Arthur Ellis", after whom [[Arthur Ellis Awards|a Canadian literary award]] for mystery writing is named.

While Canada's use of capital punishment was inherited from the legal system of the [[United Kingdom]], opposition to capital punishment began to arise in the late 1950s, and came to a head in 1959, when [[Steven Truscott]], a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of murder, with a recommendation from the [[jury]] for mercy. The judge passed down a sentence of execution by hanging, then the only legal punishment for murder in Canada.

While Truscott's death sentence would later be commuted in 1960, his case galvanized public opinion, and in 1961 Canada reclassified capital murder, defining it as a murder that involved [[premeditation]], murder during the commission of a violent crime, or the murder of a [[police officer]] or [[prison guard]]. This marked the beginning of the decline of capital punishment in Canada, as the last executions would be in [[December]], 1962. The government of Canada routinely [[commutation|commuted]] any death sentence passed thereafter (indeed, the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] made opposition to capital punishment a part of their [[platform (politics)|platform]]).

In 1976, this [[de facto]] state of affairs became law, when the [[Parliament (Canada)|Canadian Parliament]] abolished the use of capital punishment under the [[Criminal Code (Canada)|Criminal Code]]. Executions were still permitted under the [[National Defense Act (Canada)|National Defense Act]] until 1998, when they were similarly abolished.

Currently, Canada's [[Supreme Court of Canada|Supreme Court]] does not allow the [[extradition]] of criminals who may be executed for their crimes.

===Saudi Arabia===
Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of Islam under which those convicted of murder, drug trafficking, rape and armed robbery are executed in public with a sword. As of November 25, 2007, Saudi Arabia has beheaded 136 people, 38 people in 2006 and 83 people in 2005. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312768,00.html Saudi Arabia Marks 136th Beheading of 2007], Associated Press, [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]], November 25, 2007</ref>

==Religious views of capital punishment==
===Christianity===
==== Biblical View ====
The [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] has several passages that recommend the death penalty for different offenses.

According to the Old Testament, these are the offenses which merit the [[death penalty]]:

# [[Murder]] ([[Exodus]] 21:12, 21:15)
# Kidnapping to sell into slavery ([[Exodus]] 21:16)
# Cursing Parents ([[Exodus]] 21:17)
# Bestiality ([[Leviticus]] 20:15)
# Desecrating the [[Sabbath]] ([[Exodus]] 31:15)
# [[Adultery]] ([[Leviticus]] 20:10, [[Leviticus]] 19:20)
# Sacrificing children to Molech ([[Leviticus]] 20:2)
# [[Blasphemy]] ([[Leviticus]] 24:16)
# Incest ([[Leviticus]] 20:11, but see [[Genesis]] 19:33, 19:35, 4:17)
# [[Homosexual]] intercourse ([[Leviticus]] 18:22, 20:13)
# [[Witchcraft]] ([[Exodus]] 22:18, [[Leviticus]] 20:27)
# False [[Prophecy]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:5)
# Worshiping a false god ([[Deuteronomy]] 13:6-10)
# Sex with a woman betrothed to another ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:25)
# False witness in a capital crime ([[Deuteronomy]] 19:16-20)
# Daughter of a priest becoming a prostitute ([[Leviticus]] 21:9)
# Juvenile delinquency ([[Deuteronomy]] 21:18-21)
# Sacrificing to false gods ([[Exodus]] 22:20)
# Un[[chastity]] ([[Deuteronomy]] 22:21-24)

Few people support capital punishment for non-murder offenses, and a number of Christians oppose the death penalty in all cases. Apologist [[JP Holding]] argues that the Bible including the [[New Testament]] nowhere repudiates the use of capital punishment, but that it does not necessarily mandate its use, either. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/cappun.html</ref>

==== Catechism of the Catholic Church====

While not specifically saying it should be banned in all cases, the Catholic Church favors life over capital punishment as it gives the chance for redemption.

The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'<ref>[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Guillotine]]
*[[Hanging]]
*[[Lethal injection]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55990 Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy], By Michael Ireland, ''WorldNetDaily,com'', June 2, 2007.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:politics]]
[[category:law]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-12-13T18:49:56Z

Creationist: /* Millions of Years */

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

== Solar variation and global warming ==

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

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

== Controversy over the facts ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

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

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

== Ed Poor ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== I agree with Ed... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article is Thin ==

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

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

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

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

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

== Request ==

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

== Millions of Years ==

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

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

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

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vietnam War

2007-12-13T17:54:34Z

Creationist:

{{rewrite|Doesn't give the origin of the war, what it was fought about, and what the sides were. See [[Talk:Vietnam War/draft]]}}
[[Image:SaigonFall.jpg|thumb|South Vietnamese residents flee [[Saigon]], as North Vietnamese forces enter the city.]]
The '''Vietnam War''' ended in 1975 when the north conquered the country. It had been in progress more or less continuously since the surrender of [[Japan]], which occupied Vietnam during [[World War II]], in 1945. [[Ho Chi Minh]], a [[Comintern]] operative, led the movement for a unified, [[Communist]] Vietnam from 1945 until his death in 1969.

Ho's declaration of Vietnamese "independence" in 1945 from [[France]], the former colonial power, was famously modeled on that of the [[United States]],{{fact}} but that country correctly interpreted the flattery as subterfuge and backed France and its ally [[Bao Dai]] to the hilt. By 1953, 80% of the money and material used by Bao Dai's troops came from the United States. Nonetheless, in early 1954 French and allied troops were defeated at the [[Battle of Dien Bien Phu]]. The French sued for peace at talks in [[Geneva]], the upshot of which was the creation of four independent countries in their former colony of [[Indochina]]: [[Cambodia]], [[Laos]], [[North Vietnam]] and [[South Vietnam]].

The war was characterized for the ensuing twenty years by the efforts of North Vietnam to take over the South. Rather than play to the strength of the Americans by launching a [[conventional war]] like [[Korean]] leader [[Kim Il-Sung]] had, Ho chose [[subversion (political)|subversion]] of the South as his strategy, using as his tools the [[National Liberation Front]] and its non-uniformed [[guerrilla]] wing, the [[Viet Cong]]. The Comintern resistance movement against the French had previously been known as the [[Viet Minh]]. The South Vietnamese, under various [[military governments]] following the overthrow of their last civilian leader [[Ngo Dinh Diem]] in early November 1963, similarly tried to subvert Ho's government in North Vietnam, but with much less success. U. S. forces supported these operations, leading to the [[Tonkin Gulf Incident]] on August 2, 1964, when at least one U. S. destroyer was fired on by North Vietnamese forces as it operated close to their waters. The United States responded first with air attacks that became known as [[Operation Rolling Thunder]] and later with ground troops.

==Failure of US campaign to help the South==

Military, political, and social historians have ever after debated why the United States was unable to defeat the North Vietnamese.

[[James Q. Wilson]] wrote: "First, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson both wanted to avoid losing Vietnam without waging a major war in Asia." <ref>When Richard Nixon became president, he wanted to end the war by pulling out American troops, and he did so. None of the three presidents wanted to win, but all wanted to report "progress." All three administrations instructed military commanders always to report gains and rely on suspect body counts as a way of measuring progress. [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203] </ref>

Another factor was [[careerism]] of the [[officer corps]]. The number of officers in the US army grew disproportionately from the end of WWII, with a 1-in-15 ratio dropping to 1 in 6. Competition for promotions was handled badly by [[General Westmoreland]], who permitted a six month tour of duty for officers. This was hardly enough time to learn how to engage the enemy successfully, and gave rise to resentment among the largely working-class enlisted men.

America at first operated on the assumption that [[victory by body count]] was possible and would eventually bring the North Vietnamese to the peace table. There were in fact peace negotiations following [[Operation Linebacker II]] in December 1972, but these succeeded mostly in giving the United States its prisoners back and time to withdraw from the fight. It was simply impossible for the North Vietnamese leadership, which had been fighting in some form for 30 years, to imagine the indefinite existence of South Vietnam apart from unification under their rule. Accordingly, after U.S. troops had withdrawn, they renewed their offensive in 1975 and took over the former South Vietnamese capital of [[Saigon]], renaming it "Ho Chi Minh City."

Over the course of the war, the United States suffered 46,226 battle deaths with 153,311 wounded 5,486 missing and 10,326 non-battle deaths. 3.3 million troops fought over the course of the war, with the largest number of 625,866 reached on March 27th, 1969. The North Vietnamese are estimated to have lost 1 million men.<Ref>Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy & Dupuy, 1979, Chart Page 1221</Ref>

Today Vietnam has a communist government.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==

*Larry Berman, [http://hnn.us/articles/37934.html ''Perfect Spy: The Incredible Double Life of Pham Xuan An''], Time Magazine (Smithsonian Books/HarperCollins, 2007). [http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060888381/Perfect_Spy/index.aspx]
*[http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/almanac-saigon.pdf SIGINT and the Fall of Saigon, April 1975].
*[http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=6 "Secrecy, Freedom and Empire: Lessons for Today from Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers"].
*[http://www.onpower.org/foreign_regional_Asia.html#10 Vietnam War].

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-12-13T03:02:51Z

Creationist: /* References */

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

== Solar variation and global warming ==

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

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

== Controversy over the facts ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

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

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

== Ed Poor ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== I agree with Ed... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article is Thin ==

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

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

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

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

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

== Request ==

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

== Millions of Years ==

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

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

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

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

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

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

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

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

Talk:Pat Robertson

2007-12-13T02:19:00Z

Creationist: /* Disproportionate? */

This edit,
: ''ignoring the facts that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews and that Satanim emerged with Anton Szandor LaVey''
(a) assuming the claim that 10% of the general population is gay (Kinsey), given the premise "killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews " would amount to roughly slighly more than 1/3 of 10% of the population of Nazi occupied territories, including Germany proper; (b) Satanism did not begin with Anton LeVey. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know that statistic. Its sort of right, or at least was at the time. Kinsy didn't use the gay-bi-straight classification, but a continuous scale. When he said "10% of the population is gay" he actually meant "10% have some homosexual tendencies." That includes recuring fantasies, or past experiences. It includes bisexuals, too.

The Nazis really didn't like homosexuals, just the same - anyone caught in a homosexual act would end up in prison at the very least, and quite possibly shipped off to the same concentration camps as the jews. The first figure I found was an estimate of 5,000-15,000 homosexuals imprisoned in those camps, an estimate by by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum. Their crime was indicated in the camp with a pink triangle, counterpart to the star-of-david worn by jews.

"A male who indulges in criminally indecent behavior with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment. " - Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code. The full nazi policy was spread over many laws, but required imprisonment for all homosexuals. The concentration camps were the specified punishment for 'chronic' homosexuals, who were considered to be a minor threat to Germany as they did not contribute to the propagation of the master race. - Suricou. (Appologies for the lack of signing - I had signed, but mistakenly placed the signature on the previous paragraph.)

==Disproportionate?==

Is it just me, or is the fact that 95% of this article consists of a long list of controversial quotes probably not right? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

He said them all, so they should be on here, but the biography could be made more detailed. I suggest someone fill it out. - Suricou

I have to question the use of extensive quotes. Robertson is flamboyant and speaks for hours a day over a period of decades. Under those circumstances anyone could have a list of quotes. I would rather see quotes for areas that he was asked about later and re-iterated. And filling out the biography would certainly be helpful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

The man is over 70 years old. There must be more that can be added to his biography!!!

== Liberal smear job ==

This article is nothing more than a liberal smear job. I suggest getting rid of the gossip and quotes taken out of context and instead providing some actual biographical information.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:There should be more biographical information. But I don't see how these quotes, even in context, could be any better. Never letting women learn from men? What are we, in the 14th century? --[[User:Pastafarian|Pastafarian]]

Robertson is really a laughing stock among liberals, but those quotes... some of them, I just dont see any possible context you could put them in that would make them acceptable. And he did say all of them, to the best of my knowledge. Personally, I think conservatives should stop following people as crazy as Robertson and find some new and more credible idols. - Suricou

I rather enjoy: [http://www.cbn.com/special/supremecourt/prayerpledge.asp Pray that additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court.] --[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

==Robertson is a nutjob==
Robertson is a first class nut, he's almost as crazy as [[Fred Phelps]]. He says he's against oppressive dictators but if he were in power, America would become a Christian theocracy.

==Fact Removal==

"He has called for the execution of the democratically elected President of Venezuela."

If I'm not mistaken(which I admit I could be), he did in fact call for the execution of the President of Venezuela. I just thought I'd point that out.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 03:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Quote vs. Quotation ==

I'm a picky grammarian--but I would like to point out that if you want this encyclopedia taken seriously, then perhaps you should properly use language: quote is a verb, quotation is a noun. When you say quote in this article, for the most part it's a noun, and you should be using quotation.

I'll refrain from commenting further on the fact that everything on this site sounds like it was written by fourth graders. {{unsigned|Academichick}}

We would like it to be student friendly and want the student to understand about what he/she is reading. Thanks --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 10:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:Clear, concise, and skilled prose can exist at a higher academic level. And if we want students to ever reach a higher academic level, perhaps we should demonstrate that higher level of writing rather than assuming that unskilled, simple, childish writing is the norm. (See Strunk and White's ''The Elements of Style'' for some pointers). --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 17:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== Endorsing Giuliani ==

Could someone please add to the article the fact that Guiliani supports abortion and gay rights! Why did Robertson endorse a candidate that supports these views when a well known social conservative by the name of Huckabee was also running? Does anyone else find this hypocritical?

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-12-13T02:17:28Z

Creationist:

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

== Solar variation and global warming ==

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

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

== Controversy over the facts ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==

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

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

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

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

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC?

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

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

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

== Ed Poor ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== I agree with Ed... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article is Thin ==

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

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

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

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

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

== Request ==

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

== Millions of Years ==

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

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

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

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

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

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

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

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

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-12-13T02:14:13Z

Creationist: /* References */

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

== Solar variation and global warming ==

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

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

== Controversy over the facts ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==

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

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

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

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

Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were "for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data", with regards to the information provided by the IPCC?

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

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

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

== Ed Poor ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== I agree with Ed... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article is Thin ==

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

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

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

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

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

== Request ==

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

== Millions of Years ==

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

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

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

{{unsigned|Creationist}}

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

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

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

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-12-13T01:36:26Z

Creationist: /* References */

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

== Solar variation and global warming ==

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

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

== Controversy over the facts ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==

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

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

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

Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, "Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific", but used as a credible source in another, "Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes"? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another?

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

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

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

== Ed Poor ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== I agree with Ed... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article is Thin ==

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

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

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

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

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

== Request ==

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

== Millions of Years ==

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-12-13T01:27:14Z

Creationist: /* Millions of Years */

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

== Solar variation and global warming ==

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

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

== Controversy over the facts ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==

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

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

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

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

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

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

== Ed Poor ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== I agree with Ed... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article is Thin ==

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

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

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

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

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

== Request ==

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

== Millions of Years ==

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-12-13T01:26:07Z

Creationist: /* Millions of Years */

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

== Solar variation and global warming ==

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

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

== Controversy over the facts ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==

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

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

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

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

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

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

== Ed Poor ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== I agree with Ed... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article is Thin ==

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

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

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

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

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

== Request ==

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

== Millions of Years ==

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Pat Robertson

2007-12-13T00:32:11Z

Creationist: Endorsing Giuliani

This edit,
: ''ignoring the facts that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews and that Satanim emerged with Anton Szandor LaVey''
(a) assuming the claim that 10% of the general population is gay (Kinsey), given the premise "killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews " would amount to roughly slighly more than 1/3 of 10% of the population of Nazi occupied territories, including Germany proper; (b) Satanism did not begin with Anton LeVey. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know that statistic. Its sort of right, or at least was at the time. Kinsy didn't use the gay-bi-straight classification, but a continuous scale. When he said "10% of the population is gay" he actually meant "10% have some homosexual tendencies." That includes recuring fantasies, or past experiences. It includes bisexuals, too.

The Nazis really didn't like homosexuals, just the same - anyone caught in a homosexual act would end up in prison at the very least, and quite possibly shipped off to the same concentration camps as the jews. The first figure I found was an estimate of 5,000-15,000 homosexuals imprisoned in those camps, an estimate by by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum. Their crime was indicated in the camp with a pink triangle, counterpart to the star-of-david worn by jews.

"A male who indulges in criminally indecent behavior with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment. " - Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code. The full nazi policy was spread over many laws, but required imprisonment for all homosexuals. The concentration camps were the specified punishment for 'chronic' homosexuals, who were considered to be a minor threat to Germany as they did not contribute to the propagation of the master race. - Suricou. (Appologies for the lack of signing - I had signed, but mistakenly placed the signature on the previous paragraph.)

==Disproportionate?==

Is it just me, or is the fact that 95% of this article consists of a long list of controversial quotes probably not right? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

He said them all, so they should be on here, but the biography could be made more detailed. I suggest someone fill it out. - Suricou

I have to question the use of extensive quotes. Robertson is flamboyant and speaks for hours a day over a period of decades. Under those circumstances anyone could have a list of quotes. I would rather see quotes for areas that he was asked about later and re-iterated. And filling out the biography would certainly be helpful. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal smear job ==

This article is nothing more than a liberal smear job. I suggest getting rid of the gossip and quotes taken out of context and instead providing some actual biographical information.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:There should be more biographical information. But I don't see how these quotes, even in context, could be any better. Never letting women learn from men? What are we, in the 14th century? --[[User:Pastafarian|Pastafarian]]

Robertson is really a laughing stock among liberals, but those quotes... some of them, I just dont see any possible context you could put them in that would make them acceptable. And he did say all of them, to the best of my knowledge. Personally, I think conservatives should stop following people as crazy as Robertson and find some new and more credible idols. - Suricou

I rather enjoy: [http://www.cbn.com/special/supremecourt/prayerpledge.asp Pray that additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court.] --[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

==Robertson is a nutjob==
Robertson is a first class nut, he's almost as crazy as [[Fred Phelps]]. He says he's against oppressive dictators but if he were in power, America would become a Christian theocracy.

==Fact Removal==

"He has called for the execution of the democratically elected President of Venezuela."

If I'm not mistaken(which I admit I could be), he did in fact call for the execution of the President of Venezuela. I just thought I'd point that out.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 03:08, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Quote vs. Quotation ==

I'm a picky grammarian--but I would like to point out that if you want this encyclopedia taken seriously, then perhaps you should properly use language: quote is a verb, quotation is a noun. When you say quote in this article, for the most part it's a noun, and you should be using quotation.

I'll refrain from commenting further on the fact that everything on this site sounds like it was written by fourth graders. {{unsigned|Academichick}}

We would like it to be student friendly and want the student to understand about what he/she is reading. Thanks --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 10:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:Clear, concise, and skilled prose can exist at a higher academic level. And if we want students to ever reach a higher academic level, perhaps we should demonstrate that higher level of writing rather than assuming that unskilled, simple, childish writing is the norm. (See Strunk and White's ''The Elements of Style'' for some pointers). --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 17:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== Endorsing Giuliani ==

Could someone please add to the article the fact that Guiliani supports abortion and gay rights! Why did Robertson endorse a candidate that supports these views when a well known social conservative by the name of Huckabee was also running? Does anyone else find this hypocritical?

Talk:Bill Clinton

2007-12-13T00:23:13Z

Creationist: State police

Citation needed for segment claiming "Bill clinton used arkansas state policemen to solicit women outside marriage"

:I am going to have to rewrite this article for obvious reasons.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Too even-handed?[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 22:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I tend to think that the fact that the article claims that Clinton was impeached isn't greatly even-handed. I'm a conservative like any other person with reasonable political ideals, but I think we're sort of stretching credibility with this one. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry, my apologies - he was impeached! I need to brush up on my American politics. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 00:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article name ==

I see my attempt at balancing this article was hastily deleted...

Yes, because your link entry was no help to the article at all. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] [[User talk:Jallen|talk]] 11:15, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Ok, does this make sense to have as William Jefferson Clinton when he was known as Bill Clinton? I don't think that anyone seriously would move [[Julias Caesar]] to [[Gaius Julius Caesar]] or [[Plutarch]] to [[Mestrius Plutarchus]] and I don't see how these are substantially different. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:12, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:White House website says: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html William J. Clinton]
:Columbia Encyclopedia says: [http://www.bartleby.com/65/cl/ClintonB.html Bill Clinton]
:Encarta says: [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341/Clinton_Bill.html Bill Clinton]
:Britannica says: [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003019/Bill-Clinton Bill Clinton]
:American Heritage Dictionary says: [http://www.bartleby.com/61/2/C0410250.html Clinton, William Jefferson]
:Clinton Library is: [http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/ William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum]
:Gale's Biography Research Center says:
::Bill Clinton
::(American president, 1946-)
::Also known as: William Jefferson Clinton, William J. Clinton, William Clinton, William Jefferson Blythe
:and includes
::"Bill Clinton," in American Decades 1990-1999. Tandy McConnell, ed. Detroit: Gale Group, Inc., 2001.
::"Bill Clinton," in Current Leaders of Nations. Gale Research, 1998.
::"Bill Clinton," in Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed. 17 Vols. Gale Research, 1998.
::"Bill Clinton," in Newsmakers. Cumulation issue. Gale Research, 1992. (A profile of the individual's personal life, career, and newsworthy achievements.)
::"William Jefferson Clinton", in Contemporary Authors Online.
::"Bill Clinton," in Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations, Volume 6: World Leaders, 10th ed. Gale Group, 2001.

::I've moved the article to "Bill Clinton" and created redirects for all the other forms of the name.

:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:20, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Impeached? ==

From everything I've learned, Bill Clinton didn't get impeached. He was on the verge of being impeached and resigned. Article needs to be fixed if thats the case.

:I think you're thinking of [[Richard Nixon]]. Clinton _was_ impeached, but went on with running the country anyway. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Impeachment is a term not for removal, but for a vote of trial. President Clinton was impeached, and put on trial. He was not convicted. President Clinton was convicted in another matter, of a Felony. He lost his law license because of that perjury conviction. President Nixon was threatened with Impeachment, but never was there a vote, or trial. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:50, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Bill Clinton was convicted of a felony? cite, please? He gave up his law license and paid a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas bar in exchange for no criminal charges being filed.<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/</ref>. It's not exactly scot-free or exoneration, but it's also not a felony conviction. -- [[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 03:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, one step ahead, it seems. He essentially pleaded "Nolo Contendre", and for doing so, was spared the humilation of being convicted. Sorry for my inexcuseable error in mistating a conviction, when on a technicality, he really wasn't. [http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/]

<blockquote>
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a disciplinary action never before taken against a sitting U.S. president, an Arkansas Supreme Court panel has filed suit to strip Bill Clinton of his license to practice law

"The conduct of Mr. Clinton ... was motivated by a desire to protect himself from the embarrassment of his own conduct," the Arkansas State Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct declared in its five-page lawsuit, filed on Friday at about 3:45 p.m. (4:45 p.m. EDT) with the Pulaski County Circuit Court clerk in Little Rock.[http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/30/clinton.disbarment.02/]</blockquote>
--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

As far as I can tell, he didn't plead nolo contendre either, ''because there weren't any charges filed''. Your quote isn't about a plea; it isn't even about charges being filed. It's about a lawsuit being filed. Civil cases aren't criminal. Lawsuits being filed aren't lawsuits being decided. Agreements to avoid charges aren't convictions, or guilty pleas, or even nolo contendre pleas.

In your mind, was Rush Limbaugh convicted of a felony in the oxycontin case? He paid a fine and agreed to drug testing for some number of years in exchange for charges not being filed. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 04:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*What a throughly mean spirited and nasty person you must be. Let it go. I admitted my mistake. What has happened to you in your life to make you this way? I don't condone anyone in the public eye getting treatment others wouldn't get. It is no matter if its Clinton or Limbaugh, and that should be obvious. That you thought I would condone Limbaugh's illegal activities, and not Clinton's speaks to your mind-set. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:17, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: And that you would assume I thought knew the answer to my honest question speaks to yours. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 04:23, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

This article goes to great lengths to link the rise of Bin Laden to Clinton, but the old blighter doesn't get a mention in the article on Dubya. Why so? (Need I ask!) [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:51, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

On that note, I'd like to ask why the Clinton page mentions minor, inaccurate statements but the page on our current president doesn't even mention a blemish on his presidential career. While Wikipedia articles do contain vandalism, their sysops do an excellent job at controlling it. Why can't we really be fair and unlock all the pages, and simply make our moderators do their job? --[[User:Aurum|Aurum]] 08:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Saying its 'innaccurate" doesn't make it so; the page is locked precisely to prevent the type of vandalism you are suggesting of inserting innaccurate statements.

:BTW, what did [[Sandy Burglar]] do with all those documents, and why? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:19, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Impeachment quote ==

it is totally unclear where "they have made promiscuous use of it" is supposed to fit in - maybe someone knows? [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 17:21, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== The Senate subsequently voted to acquit Clinton. ==

Having this follow the bit about Flynt makes it look as though there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the offer and the acquittal. That may be the case, and it may be nothing more than an interesting coincidence. If it is the case, a charge of that gravity would need to be backed up with a reference, according to the C-pedia rules. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 00:07, 15 July 2007 (EDT).

:Really? You suppose was cause-and-effect between Flynt blackmailing Senators for private conduct & [[Jim Jeffords]] jumping parties in 2001? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:46, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea, nor do I really care. My point is that the way the article is phrased IMPLIES a relationship without documenting it. You want that kind of implication to be on this website without any sort of evidence, that's fine by me. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 14:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:Let's look at the contrast; without it, the implication is the impeachment charges were all bogus and without foundation, and Clinton was somehow victimized. Whereas the historical record shows, Clinton defenders were quit upfront about using blackmail & a "scorched earth" policy to defend Clinton, and even went so far as naming names. Clinton defenders for example publicly claimed they had evidence of homosexual activity by [[Trent Lott]] in his college days, and judging by Lotts reaction to the House Impeachment as reported by House Judiciary Committee Councel [[David Schippers]], [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200012/ai_n8927884/pg_2] it's up to the reader to decide why the evidence in the Clinton Impeachment case was buried. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:13, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

So much for discussion, I guess. Look - if C-pedia wants to make the association between Flynt's seedy offer and the Senate's ruling a part of the article (an association which is about as subtle as a banjo as it's phrased here), so be it. At least edit it it so as to have the House and Senate results follow each other instead of being in separate paragraphs...and to spell "acquit" properly.

[[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 00:07, 15 July 2007 (EDT).

:::These are the facts: (1) Stephanoplous & Carville made public statements that others would be outed if Clinton was impeached; (2) Larry Flynt, an old frined of Carville and of Clinton's college roommate at George Washington University, [[Strobe Talbott]], publicly and in a high profile manner interfered with a Consitutional process by offering reward money for blackmail information, never mind if the information was true or not, and stated exactly why he did so; (3) the Senate voted to acquit. (4) Stephanoplous, Carville, Flynt, Clinton, and every Senator who voted to acquit is just going to have to live with those facts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:13, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

== Cocaine allegation ==

We need a source for the cocaine allegation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:22, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

== "Cruise missiles to manipulate opinion polls" ==

That section title is misleading as it points toward ''suspicions'' but not hard evidence. The body of the section need not be changed but I would like to move that they section be retitled something like: "Cruise missile controversy".

== Clinton and Gay Bomb? ==

What does some unnamed researcher's (denied) request for funding for a ridiculous project have to do with an encyclopedia article about Clinton? Will we also include any silly idea spawned during the Bush era in the GWB article? Or do you honestly think that no researcher ever requested money for another silly project since Bush became President? This and the "See also: Gay Bomb" link will only make CP look foolish, I think.

Seriously, guys, the link between Clinton and the Gay Bomb is nothing more than "Clinton happened to be in power while somebody way lower in the chain had a dumb idea that got rejected by the Defense Department. Chances are he never even saw this request." --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:07, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

*"See Also"'s may or may not have anything at all to do with the article subject, Jenkins. Think of them as further reading material, in the same general category. Like the Reagan article, see Conservative Links, which may or may not include links to personalities and/or organizations Reagan might well have detested. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:30, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

::While I silently disagree with the driving logic, I'm willing to accept it and thus the existence of the "See also: Gay Bomb" part. However, the explicit paragraph in the article itself does look extremely out of place, with or without the "See also" section. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:40, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Right. Just as Reagan just happened to be in power when the AIDS epidemic hit; only in that case, I do not think funding was denied. Nonetheless, we never stop hearing the end of it (See [[Liberal hate speech]], ''Gay Reagan is Dead''). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:21, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Erm... let's see... the term "AIDS" appears 0 times in [[Ronald Reagan]]. Any of the words "Acquired", "Immune", "Deficiency" (or "Immunodeficiency"), or "Syndrome" appear 0 times in the article. "HIV" or "virus" appear 0 times. "Epidemic" appears 0 times. "Disease" appears only in the Alzheimer context. ("Gay" appears 0 times, too.) I also read over the article, and couldn't find any reference to it.
::::At the same time, our [[AIDS]] article makes no mention of Reagan, instead saying that it "was first recognized in the early 1980s". Compare this with [[Gay Bomb]], where you inserted the "proposed during the Clinton era" bit even though all linked sources/references simply say "in 1994".
::::I'm not sure what point you wanted to make, but it looks a lot like mine: "It's just something that happened while the guy was President, but he was not directly involved. So what is this doing in his article?" In fact, this proposal most likely never made it all the way up to Clinton since it was rejected early on. So if anything, the Gay Bomb is even less connected to Clinton than AIDS is connected to Reagan. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:26, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

::::::Yes, that's all very interesting. One wonders why, if AIDS is not exclusively a homosexual disease, why to this day are gay activists and gay activists organizations the only ones who criticize Reagan for not mentioning the term "AIDS"? And again, Reagan funded AIDS research, whereas Clinton promoted homosexual causes, and in doing so could have prevented the 9/11 attacks by dropping a [[Gay Bomb|gay bomb]] on Afghan terrorists camps. But he appears to have failed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::You're dragging this discussion further and further away from the actual point, Rob. Please point out to me where Bill Clinton had any direct influence on the Gay Bomb (...and please tell me that your "Gay Bomb could have prevented 9/11" thing is just a sick joke of yours).
:::::::Here is what the FOX News source says (emphasis mine):
{{cquote|Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col. Cathy Reardon said the idea was proposed '''by an Air Force researcher''' at a lab at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas, but it was '''rejected by the Defense Department'''. Officials noted that the Air Force constantly is considering funding proposals.}}
:::::::Funny, no mention of the President being involved in any way!
:::::::The Gay Bomb has absolutely no connection to Bill Clinton (aside from your '''opinion''' about what he could have or should have done about it). It is completely off-topic in an article about Bill Clinton, and by now I almost assume it serves as some sort of smear-by-association by trying to link Clinton to an absolutely ridiculous proposal made by some researcher. Please prove me wrong and remove it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:05, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Similiar to [[Venona]] project; [[Truman]] had no knowledge of it, yet it is integral to his Administration, the history of his times, and everything that resulted from his decision making thereafter, with or without his knowledge of Venona. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:26, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::In other words: Any decision made at any level in any department in the administration automatically is directly connected to the President in person and thus should be mentioned in his concise encyclopedia article?
:::::::::I must also note your inability to stay focused on the here and now. I start discussing one issue connected to one person, and you immediately swerve to Reagan and Truman, citing things that had significantly more impact than one of undoubtedly countless silly proposals made while Clinton happened to be in charge.
:::::::::Are you seriously basing your Clinton/Bomb connection on your unsourced and unprovable opinion that it could have prevented 9/11 and that thus, the refusal by the Defense Department becomes his failure as President?
:::::::::And am I right in assuming that you'll continue to refuse addressing the points at hand and instead drag me across US History until I give up and leave you alone? If you answer only one question, please answer that last one. Then I could write this off as a lost cause and move on. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

<--

*''In other words: Any decision made at any level in any department in the administration automatically is directly connected to the President in person''
:*Comment: Just like the Watergate breakin, (a) it wasn't even done by a government agency, and (b) Nixon had no prior knowledge. However I don't think we will ever undo the damage done to Nixon's reputation, then or now, by alleged scholarly, reputable, and journalistic sources who seem to ignore this fact. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:43, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
:::[selfquote] ''And am I right in assuming that you'll continue to refuse addressing the points at hand and instead drag me across US History until I give up and leave you alone?'' [/selfquote]
:::I'll take that as a "Yes", then... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:48, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
::::*Am I right in assuming Bill Clinton was an imcometent idiot without a clue as to what was going on in his administration? particulalry as it pertains to national security? I though he was the smartest person to ever walk the planet? I thought having him as First Lady is our only hope of survival of the human species? Why, what you are saying tends to make me think we're being decieved..... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:33, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, at least you're focusing on the right person. That's a good start! Now, if you could focus a bit on why you included the Gay Bomb in the Clinton article, we'd make actual progress!
::::::Replying to your post in order:
::::::*I don't know if he is/was an idiot or not. That's not the issue here, though.
::::::*National Security ''might'' be a remote issue if there was proof that he had any influence here, but the articles only say that "the Defense Department" rejected it and that the interviewed officials called it a dumb idea, so it's reasonable to assume that it also would've been rejected without Clinton being President, I'd say. So unless you show that Clinton hired the guy who ended up rejecting it (which would be an indirect link and still not enough to merit being mentioned in the Clinton article in my eyes), it's not the issue here. It might become an issue if you managed to prove that the Gay Bomb (1) would have worked as advertised, (2) would have been ready by 2001, (3) would have been deployed to take out terror camps (Why didn't they just use a normal bomb, anyway?), and (4) would have successfully prevented 9/11. And if you ''somehow'' managed to do all that, here is my question: "Why didn't Bush pick up this project, which so obviously could prevent another 9/11 and magically solve tons of terror problems?" (Oh, wait, don't answer. I assume he did, and it's just Top Secret, and you'll have the last laugh once Bush gayifies dozens of terror camps, right?)
::::::*I don't know if Clinton is the smartest man on the planet - but if I had to guess, I'd say that he's not. Again: Not the issue.
::::::*This issue is also not about Hillary Clinton. At all.
::::::I might have felt some sort of sting if I was a Clinton fanboy. Apparently you think that anybody who disagrees with you about your Clinton edit must be a blind fanatic. How cute. Sorry, but I don't really care much about Clinton (and that goes for Bill and Hillary). I just care about your increasingly silly attempt to justify a completely off-topic edit that apparently aimed at simple smear-by-association (or, if you go through with your theory, smear-by-blaming-Clinton-for-9/11).
::::::Here, let me try this ''yet'' again: '''Where is the link that justifies the Gay Bomb being included in the Bill Clinton article? None of the sources mention him, and the request was simply turned down by somebody in the Defense Department.''' --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:10, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::As I understand, [[Hillary Clinton]] was the [[Dick Cheney]] of the Clinton [[White House]]. While [[Bill Clinton]] & [[George W. Bush]] were just the idiot front men used to pose for pictures with Girl Scouts in the Rose Garden, Hillary, like Dick Cheney (and even GWH Bush in the [[Reagan]] White House) was the ''real'' power and brains behind the throne making policy and running the show.

:::::::So indeed Hillary Clinton has some questions to answer..... 15:29, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

::::::::...I give up. This "discussion" made me lose 20 IQ points, I think. Have fun, Rob.
::::::::To the brave souls who managed to read all the way to here: I tried. I really did. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:42, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Jenkins, why did you bother? This is conservapedia we're talking about here. If the Half-Hour News Hour would've stuck to mining this page for material, perhaps it would still be on the air! [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:10, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

You are still my hero, Jenkins.

== Capnolagnia ==

There really should be a mention of his [[capnolagnia]]!! [[User:Booth|Booth]] 13:05, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== State police ==

"He used Arkansas state policemen to arrange for him to meet women outside of marriage."

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to state that this allegedly happened? Nothing was ever proven. The allegations were just hearsay. I am not a Clinton fan, but leaving a statement like this in would be comparable to a statement found on Wikipedia.

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-12-12T23:56:02Z

Creationist: /* Request */

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

== Solar variation and global warming ==

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

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

== Controversy over the facts ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==

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

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

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

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

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

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

== Ed Poor ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== I agree with Ed... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article is Thin ==

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

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

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

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

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

== Request ==

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

== Millions of Years ==

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

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

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

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-12-12T23:54:28Z

Creationist: Millions of Years

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

== Solar variation and global warming ==

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

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

== Controversy over the facts ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== References ==

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

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

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

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

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

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

== Ed Poor ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== I agree with Ed... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Article is Thin ==

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

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

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

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

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

*You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

== Request ==

Can somebody add [[:Category:Liberal Myths]]? Please and thank you, God bless.

== Millions of Years ==

I am a firm believer in the bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old.

However, the article states, "According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles)."

This view is not consistent with the bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the bible? According to the bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the bible never mentioned one.