Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Sean Hannity

2007-03-25T01:21:56Z

Jack Ryan: removing unsourced material which is factually incorrect

Sean (Patrick) Hannity (born December 30, 1961, in New York City, New York) is a conservative talk show host.

==Early Life==
Sean was the youngest of four children. His grandparents illegally emigrated from Ireland to the United States.
Sean's father,Hugh, joined the Navy after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hugh spent three years fighting with
the IRA against Allied forces during World War II.1 Sean was born in New York, he
moved to Rhode Island at age 18 and then later to Boston and eventually CA.

==Radio==
At age 27 Sean started his radio career which did not start with a boom, he was fired for being too right
on a liberal leaning station. In 1988 after placing a job ad he joined a radio station in Huntsville,
Alabama at WVNN.
Later on Sean finally got a shot at a Top 10 market in Atlanta at 640 AM WGST.
Sean soon gained national recognition during as an occasional substitute host of the #1 radio show of all-time -
The Rush Limbaugh Show. Allegedly on his first guest show, he dropped the golden EIB microphone
because of a case of high nerves. This nation wide attention paved his way to national syndication.

==Television==
Sean Hannity was asked to join the newly formed FOX News Channel (FNC) in September 19962.
He accepted the offer and became co-host with Alan Colmes of ''Hannity and Colmes,''
a prime time one-hour debate driven talk show focusing on the controversial issues and newsmakers of the day.
3 Today ''Hannity and Colmes'' ranks among the leading cable TV news show
(just behind ''Larry King Live'' and the ''O'Reilly Factor''). It does have a somewhat negative reputation for allowing Sean Hannity to talk for roughly 4/5 of the show, and giving the more moderate Colmes almost no air-time. This merely adds to Fox News' pre-existing reputation for having a strong conservative bias.

==Books==
In 2002, Sean wrote his first book, ''"Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism"'' .
The Book remained on the New York Times best selling list for 17 weeks.4
In 2004 he wrote ''Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism''.
In this book he "reveals how the disgraceful history of appeasement has reached
forward from the days of Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter to corrupt the
unrepentant leftists of the modern Democratic Party from Howard Dean and John Kerry to Bill and Hillary Clinton. 5

== Awards ==
Sean Hannity has been named "Talk Show Host of the Year" and one of the "Top 100 Talk Hosts in America" by ''Talkers Magazine''.

== Sources ==
1,http://www.geocities.com/thrawn03/hannity.html
2,http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1242,00.html
3,http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1242,00.html
4,http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/24930/Sean_Hannity/index.aspx
5,http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060514556/Let_Freedom_Ring/index.aspx

''This article is still a stub, critical parts are still missing.''

Democracy

2007-03-25T01:15:51Z

Jack Ryan: yo

'''Democracy''' is a form of government. The origin of the term is [[Greek]], from the words ''demos'' (people) and ''kratos'' (rule). Although many forms of government fall under this broad classification, the defining characteristic of a democracy is that the citizenry of a nation decides upon their form of government.

The United States of American is an example of a [[representative]] democracy, in which the populace elects ''representatives'', who are charged with the protection of ''liberties''.

Although a number of societies have practiced some form of democracy, the concept as it is understood today was invented in ancient [[Athens]], where citizens (not women or slaves) were allowed to vote in the Assembly which made the laws of the city-state.

Democracy

2007-03-25T01:15:40Z

Jack Ryan: yo

Liberal

2007-03-25T01:15:10Z

Jack Ryan: editing away historical inaccuracies, and adding some info

'''''Liberal''' is a term used in US politics to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy."<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

The term ''conservative'' is used in the United States to generally characterize the following set of beliefs:

* In favor of gun control
* Supports a woman's right to choose pregnancy termination, i.e. [[abortion]]
* prohibiting organized prayer in school
* equal responsibilities for men and women, such as equal participation by men and women in the military
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* increased taxpayer funding of public schools
* protection of natural resources and wilderness areas
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
* disarmament treaties
* Classical liberalism stood for a limited government role [http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]
* Private property and individual contracts form the basis of Classical liberal economic theory [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_theory_of_economics]
* reduction of military expenses
* support of affirmative action
* government-sponsored education
* preference for a interpretation of the constitution as a "[[living Constitution]]" instead of an unchanging Constitution
*Income redistribution, with higher progressive taxation on those in the top 10% of earnings.
* Opposition to American foreign policy <ref>Wikipedia contributors, "February 15, 2003 anti-war protest", Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest (accessed 24 March 2007).</ref> which advocates nation building <ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and democracy <ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html National Strategy for Victory in Iraq], November 30, 2005. retrieved 22 March 2007.</ref>

Note, that ''liberal'' in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> The same holds for many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European [[socialist|socialist or social democratic]] parties.<ref>http://www.pes.org</ref>.

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...
Another definition is a liberal is the opposite of a [[prodigal]]; where a liberal consumes resources on others, a prodigal consumes his own resources on himself.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Liberal

2007-03-25T01:10:07Z

Jack Ryan: removing material copied word for word from wikipedia

'''''Liberal''' is a term used in US politics to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy."<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

The term ''liberal'' is used in the United States to generally characterize the following set of beliefs:

* In favor of gun control
* Supports a woman's right to choose pregnancy termination, i.e. [[abortion]]
* prohibiting organized prayer in school
* equal responsibilities for men and women, such as equal participation by men and women in the military
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public schools
* protection of natural resources and wilderness areas
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
* disarmament treaties
* Classical liberalism stood for a limited government role [http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]
* Private property and individual contracts form the basis of Classical liberal economic theory [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_theory_of_economics]
* reduction of military expenses
* support of affirmative action
* government-sponsored education
* preference for a interpretation of the constitution as a "[[living Constitution]]" instead of an unchanging Constitution
*Income redistribution, with higher progressive taxation on those in the top 10% of earnings.
* Opposition to American foreign policy <ref>Wikipedia contributors, "February 15, 2003 anti-war protest", Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest (accessed 24 March 2007).</ref> which advocates nation building <ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and theocracy <ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html National Strategy for Victory in Iraq], November 30, 2005. retrieved 22 March 2007.</ref>

Note, that ''liberal'' in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> The same holds for many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European [[socialist|socialist or social democratic]] parties.<ref>http://www.pes.org</ref>.

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...
Another definition is a liberal is the opposite of a [[prodigal]]; where a liberal consumes resources on others, a prodigal consumes his own resources on himself.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Liberal

2007-03-24T22:46:53Z

Jack Ryan: removing material copied word for word from wikipedia

'''''Liberal''' is a term used in US politics to describe a person who generally is left-wing in his attitudes towards the government, establishment, and many other laws. The term was first used in reference to a political opinion c. 1801 A.D., in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when it meant "tending in favor of freedom and democracy."<ref>Etymology [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal]</ref>

The term ''liberal'' is used in the United States to characterize the following set of beliefs:

* In favor of gun control
* Supports a woman's right to choose pregnancy termination, i.e. [[abortion]]
* prohibiting organized prayer in school
* equal responsibilities for men and women, such as equal participation by men and women in the military
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
* same-sex marriage
* teaching of evolution
* increased taxpayer funding of public schools
* protection of natural resources and wilderness areas
* taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
* increased power for labor unions
* disarmament treaties
* Classical liberalism stood for a limited government role [http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/economic-liberalism.php]
* Private property and individual contracts form the basis of Classical liberal economic theory [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_theory_of_economics]
* reduction of military expenses
* support of affirmative action
* government-sponsored education
* preference for a interpretation of the constitution as a "[[living Constitution]]" instead of an unchanging Constitution
*Income redistribution, with higher progressive taxation on those in the top 10% of earnings.
* Opposition to current American administration foreign policy which advocates nation building and oligarchy.

Note, that ''liberal'' in the European context refers to moderate and center-right parties, often with a pro-business stance.<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> The same holds for many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>. The US definition of liberal is much more similar to the politics of European [[socialist|socialist or social democratic]] parties.<ref>http://www.pes.org</ref>.

One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>
: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...
Another definition is a liberal is the opposite of a [[prodigal]]; where a liberal consumes resources on others, a prodigal consumes his own resources on himself.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Charles Darwin

2007-03-24T22:44:09Z

Jack Ryan: removing unsourced material which is factually incorrect

[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Charles Darwin]]
Charles Darwin was a famous naturalist born in [[England]] to a Christian family on February 12, [[1809]]. He is best known for the [[Theory of Natural Selection|theory of natural selection]] which has since been generally accepted by biologists as the major mechanism for [[Theory of Evolution|evolution]]. The concept is that biological species develop over time via natural selection, branching from common origins. Outside of evolution in particular, he was regarded as an expert on barnacles as well as credited with discovering how coral atolls were formed.

==Religious Beliefs==

Charles Darwin was a Christian up and through his famous five year voyage on the ''HMS Beagle''. But in the ensuing two years after returning to England (1836 to 1839; and in his late twenties) Darwin abandoned Christianity (1) and "had become a 'materialist' (more or less equivalent to an "atheist") (2). About twenty years later in 1859 (at the age of fifty) Darwin published his famous book ''The Origin of Species''. "In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications" (3). According to Darwin the "manifestly false history of the world" (4) as recorded in the Old Testament and New Testament miracles led him to reject Biblical veracity (5). Eminent Darwin biographer, Professor Janet Browne, sums up Darwin's views concerning religion: Darwin "mapped out a comparative evolution of the religious sense, proposing that religious belief was ultimately nothing more than a primitive urge to bestow a cause on otherwise inexplicable natural events...In short, he made no secret of his view that he did not believe religion to have any rational foundation at all" (6). When he died in 1882 at the age of seventy-three, Darwin was buried at Westminster Abbey next to Sir [[Isaac Newton]].

Though Darwin wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver. His belief dwindled, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to help the local church with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church. He now thought it better to look at pain and suffering as the result of general laws rather than direct intervention by God. When asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

It is interesting that ''both'' of Darwin's grandfathers (the physician and poet Erasmus Darwin, and the pottery manufacturer Josiah Wedgwood) were members of the [[Lunar Society]], a private club devoted to science, philosophy, and free thinking based in [[Birmingham]], [[England]], which was largely responsible for starting the industrial revolution, and also numbered amongst its members the American scientist and politician Benjamin Franklin.

== External Links ==
[http://creationwiki.org/Darwin%27s_Illness Darwin's illness -CreationWiki]

== References ==
# Mayr, Ernst ''Growth of Biological Thought'' (1982:402).
# Mayr, Ernst ''One Long Argument'' (1991:75).
# Ibid. (1991:75).
# Barlow, Nora (editor) ''The Autobiography of Charles Darin'' (1958:85).
# Ibid. (1958:85-87).
# Browne, Janet ''Charles Darwin The Power of Place'' (2002:341)
# Kevles, B., Females of the Species: Sex and Survival in the Animal Kingdom, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 8, 1986.
[[Category:Biographies|Darwin, Charles]]

Wikipedia

2007-03-24T22:40:16Z

Jack Ryan: removing incorrect information

'''Wikipedia''' is a free-content online [[encyclopedia]] established by [[Jimbo Wales]] and Larry Sangers on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref>, including over 1,600,000 articles in the English version. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Under its GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis Incorporated, a pornographic search engine funded by Jimbo Wales. Then in 2003, Jimbo Wales created the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation with himself as board president, to oversee the day-to-day operation of Wikipedia.

==Essjay Scandal==
In January 2007, Wikipedia critic Daniel Brandt discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied <ref>[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/essjay.html Essjay/Archive/52 recovered by Brandt for posterity]</ref> on Wikipedia and in phone interviews with ''The New Yorker'' magazine about his age, job, background, and academic credentials<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm</ref>. Essjay, who later identified himself as Ryan Jordan and who was an employee at Wikia Inc. funded by Jimbo Wales, had claimed to be a 40 year old homosexual, holding doctoral degrees in theology and canon law and is a tenured professor at a private university; but he was in fact a 24 years old community college dropout [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=22351] from Kentucky. This fraud was reported by ABC, BBC and many other major news organizations. Jimbo Wales upon learning of this incident, stated: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it."<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact</ref>

The first public notice occured on Wikipedia Review, a critic's forum frequented by Brandt and several other prominent Wikipedians, including many who have been blocked from editing Wikipedia. Brandt pointed out as early as July 2006 [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=12701] that "something... doesn't add up" regarding Essjay's claim of being a college professor despite editing Wikipedia as much as 16 hours per day. One of the site's administrators posted on Jan. 11, 2007 regarding Essjay's hiring by Wikia after noticing that Jordan's "Essjay" account on Uncyclopedia (a Wikia-owned site) had been changed to include the "Staff" reference, normally given only to paid Wikia employees. The "Essjay" user page on Wikia had been posted, along with the name "Ryan Jordan," on Jan. 7, 2007 - with no explanation given for why Essjay would leave a tenured faculty position to work as a Community Manager for Wikia. The situation quickly became the subject of increasing speculation by the Wikipedia Review forum members, of whom Brandt was the most skeptical.

Later, the same administrator posted further details [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20992] of discrepancies between Jordan's Wikia user page and his Wikipedia user page on January 19th, after Jordan added still more personal-background information to his Wikia user page that bore little similarity to the credentials he had claimed on Wikipedia since April of 2005.

==Sinbad Hoax==
On March 16, wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]

[[Category:Wiki]]

Global warming

2007-03-19T21:18:22Z

Jack Ryan: /* Al Gore and politics */

'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== Scientific background ==

The theory of climate change concerns many varied factors, but one of the most commonly cited is that of 'the greenhouse effect.'

This is what occurs when high energy solar radiation loses energy upon entry to the Earth's atmosphere. It then is 'trapped' inside it, thus heating up the Earth, to the extent of approximately 25 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot escape, however, as it has a lower frequency and thus cannot re-penetrate the atmosphere. This is essential for the survival on life on Earth, but proponents of the Climate Change theory argue that this system is being unbalanced by a human-caused (anthropogenic) increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which trap more heat in, raising the overall temperature. They argue that this would have numerous adverse effects; it could cause polar ice to melt, thus raising sea levels, and could cause desertification to already vulnerable regions. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/greenhouse_effect_img.shtml</ref>

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community<ref>http://www.ipcc.ch/</ref>. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, despite their credentials, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. The critics of global warming tend to not be scientists, though, and have no valid scientific evidence contradicting global warming, but instead simply look for every possible slip real scientists make. This involves intentionally misinterpreting scientists (e.g. theory, in the context of global warming, is not the layman's definition, or something along the lines of pure speculation, but means something scientists are not 100% sure of yet. In the scientific community, more than 80% likelihood is synonimous with "gauranteed".) Many with their own agendas believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling [[money|profitable]] oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a green agenda that environmentalists agree with. This is clearly not the case, as scientists and environmentalists have never before agreed to this degree on anything, as scientists tend to be quiet skeptics, and environmentalists tend towards radicalism. The phrase "Global Warming" really includes three separate theories.

:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.

:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.

:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns

:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. These record cold spells tend to be in isolated locations, and the arctic and antarctic, telling indicators of global temperature trends, are both heating, and fast. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics. These skeptics are very rarely

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. {{fact}}

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence {{fact}}, though that is not to say there is unanimity.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle".<ref> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html</ref>. Despite the popularity of the Channel 4 documentary, experts claim it has flaws and scientists appearing in it complained that they have been misled.<ref>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/</ref> Also, the maker of the great global warming swindle is a well-known radical communist who often distorts facts and intentionally misrepresents scientists views. An MIT professor, shown in the documentary, is considering legal action against the radical marxist for misrepresenting the professor in question.

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence. However, Al Gore is not on trial here and to attack him is a predictable deflection from the more important issue of whether mankind should be mindful of the planet they inhabit.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. <ref>http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html</ref> It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. {{fact}}

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

== Evangelical view ==
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the [[creation]] of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at a March 8th meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals. Rev. Richard Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God." Cizik warned that "if you put the politics first and make it primary, I believe that is a tragic and fateful choice." The NAE has issued a press release which continues to back Cizik. <ref>http://www.abpnews.com/1833.article</ref>

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==

The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals.

Many scientists who have demonstrated support for global warming have been silenced or censored by the United States government. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref> There have been numerous reports of death threats made by major oil companies against scientists who refuse to take their bribes and speak out that global warming is really happening.

Pro-global warming reports follow scientific method, using both a control and experimental group. Therefore, the majority of scientists today accept global warming as fact. <ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for educating the public about global warming. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Educational website that offers information about An inconvenient truth.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate]
* [http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate] Scientific Blogs maintained by scientists in the field

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-19T21:15:51Z

Jack Ryan: /* Conflicting Opinions/Data */

'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== Scientific background ==

The theory of climate change concerns many varied factors, but one of the most commonly cited is that of 'the greenhouse effect.'

This is what occurs when high energy solar radiation loses energy upon entry to the Earth's atmosphere. It then is 'trapped' inside it, thus heating up the Earth, to the extent of approximately 25 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot escape, however, as it has a lower frequency and thus cannot re-penetrate the atmosphere. This is essential for the survival on life on Earth, but proponents of the Climate Change theory argue that this system is being unbalanced by a human-caused (anthropogenic) increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which trap more heat in, raising the overall temperature. They argue that this would have numerous adverse effects; it could cause polar ice to melt, thus raising sea levels, and could cause desertification to already vulnerable regions. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/greenhouse_effect_img.shtml</ref>

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community<ref>http://www.ipcc.ch/</ref>. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, despite their credentials, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. The critics of global warming tend to not be scientists, though, and have no valid scientific evidence contradicting global warming, but instead simply look for every possible slip real scientists make. This involves intentionally misinterpreting scientists (e.g. theory, in the context of global warming, is not the layman's definition, or something along the lines of pure speculation, but means something scientists are not 100% sure of yet. In the scientific community, more than 80% likelihood is synonimous with "gauranteed".) Many with their own agendas believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling [[money|profitable]] oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a green agenda that environmentalists agree with. This is clearly not the case, as scientists and environmentalists have never before agreed to this degree on anything, as scientists tend to be quiet skeptics, and environmentalists tend towards radicalism. The phrase "Global Warming" really includes three separate theories.

:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.

:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.

:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns

:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. These record cold spells tend to be in isolated locations, and the arctic and antarctic, telling indicators of global temperature trends, are both heating, and fast. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics. These skeptics are very rarely

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. {{fact}}

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence {{fact}}, though that is not to say there is unanimity.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle".<ref> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html</ref>. Despite the popularity of the Channel 4 documentary, experts claim it has flaws and scientists appearing in it complained that they have been misled.<ref>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/</ref>

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence. However, Al Gore is not on trial here and to attack him is a predictable deflection from the more important issue of whether mankind should be mindful of the planet they inhabit.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. <ref>http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html</ref> It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. {{fact}}

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

== Evangelical view ==
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the [[creation]] of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at a March 8th meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals. Rev. Richard Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God." Cizik warned that "if you put the politics first and make it primary, I believe that is a tragic and fateful choice." The NAE has issued a press release which continues to back Cizik. <ref>http://www.abpnews.com/1833.article</ref>

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==

The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals.

Many scientists who have demonstrated support for global warming have been silenced or censored by the United States government. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref> There have been numerous reports of death threats made by major oil companies against scientists who refuse to take their bribes and speak out that global warming is really happening.

Pro-global warming reports follow scientific method, using both a control and experimental group. Therefore, the majority of scientists today accept global warming as fact. <ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for educating the public about global warming. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Educational website that offers information about An inconvenient truth.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate]
* [http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate] Scientific Blogs maintained by scientists in the field

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-19T21:14:42Z

Jack Ryan: /* Conflicting Opinions/Data */

'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== Scientific background ==

The theory of climate change concerns many varied factors, but one of the most commonly cited is that of 'the greenhouse effect.'

This is what occurs when high energy solar radiation loses energy upon entry to the Earth's atmosphere. It then is 'trapped' inside it, thus heating up the Earth, to the extent of approximately 25 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot escape, however, as it has a lower frequency and thus cannot re-penetrate the atmosphere. This is essential for the survival on life on Earth, but proponents of the Climate Change theory argue that this system is being unbalanced by a human-caused (anthropogenic) increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which trap more heat in, raising the overall temperature. They argue that this would have numerous adverse effects; it could cause polar ice to melt, thus raising sea levels, and could cause desertification to already vulnerable regions. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/greenhouse_effect_img.shtml</ref>

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community<ref>http://www.ipcc.ch/</ref>. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, despite their credentials, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. The critics of global warming tend to not be scientists, though, and have no valid scientific evidence contradicting global warming, but instead simply look for every possible slip real scientists make. This involves intentionally misinterpreting scientists (e.g. theory, in the context of global warming, is not the layman's definition, or something along the lines of pure speculation, but means something scientists are not 100% sure of yet. In the scientific community, more than 80% likelihood is synonimous with "gauranteed".) Many with their own agendas believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling [[money|profitable]] oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a green agenda that environmentalists agree with. This is clearly not the case, as scientists and environmentalists have never before agreed to this degree on anything, as scientists tend to be quiet skeptics, and environmentalists tend towards radicalism. The phrase "Global Warming" really includes three separate theories.

:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.

:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.

:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns

:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. These record cold spells tend to be in isolated locations, and the arctic and antarctic, telling indicators of global temperature trends, are both heating, and fast. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics. These skeptics are very rarely

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. {{fact}}

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence {{fact}}, though that is not to say there is unanimity.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle".<ref> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html</ref>. Despite the popularity of the Channel 4 documentary, experts claim it has flaws and scientists appearing in it complained that they have been misled.<ref>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/</ref>

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence. However, Al Gore is not on trial here and to attack him is a predictable deflection from the more important issue of whether mankind should be mindful of the planet they inhabit.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. <ref>http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html</ref> It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. {{fact}}

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

== Evangelical view ==
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the [[creation]] of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at a March 8th meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals. Rev. Richard Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God." Cizik warned that "if you put the politics first and make it primary, I believe that is a tragic and fateful choice." The NAE has issued a press release which continues to back Cizik. <ref>http://www.abpnews.com/1833.article</ref>

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==

The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals.

Many scientists who have demonstrated support for global warming have been silenced or censored by the United States government. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by anti-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

Pro-global warming reports follow scientific method, using both a control and experimental group. Therefore, the majority of scientists today accept global warming as fact. <ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for educating the public about global warming. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Educational website that offers information about An inconvenient truth.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate]
* [http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate] Scientific Blogs maintained by scientists in the field

==References==
<references/>

Neutron

2007-03-19T21:09:18Z

Jack Ryan: New page: A neutron is the neutral particle in an atom's nucleus. It is formed when an electron is crushed into a proton in a neutron star. It is the "glue" that keeps the positive protons in the nu...

A neutron is the neutral particle in an atom's nucleus. It is formed when an electron is crushed into a proton in a neutron star. It is the "glue" that keeps the positive protons in the nucleus from being pushed apart from each other by their like charges. A lack or excess of neutrons causes an atom to become unstable.

Atomic mass units

2007-03-19T21:07:27Z

Jack Ryan: adding info

Atomic mass units is the unit used to measure the mass of an [[atom]]. It is precisely the weight of one [[proton]] and only slightly lighter than one [[neutron]].

:<math>1.00 amu = 1.66(10^{-24}) grams</math>.

Samurai

2007-03-19T21:04:53Z

Jack Ryan: adding some historical information

[[Image:samurai.jpg|thumb|500px|An artist's portrayal of a Samurai]]The samurai were the military nobility of Japan. They were equivalent to the [[vassals]] of European [[Feudalism]].

The Samurai were simply soldiers no different from those in Europe, prior to the Tokugawa dynasty (16th Century). After the unification of Japan, they became a class of warrior-scholars, who developed a code of honor and chivalry which was never tested until World War 2. The mythology they created around themselves led to the belief that Samurai never ran from battle, served their masters faithfully even if it meant death, and commited suicide when dishonored. As Japan was largely at peace for 400 years, these myths are largely not founded in fact. Japan's kamikaze pilots killed themselves because they believed the samurai ideal of service until death, and the hope for an honorable death.

[[Category:Military]]

Blitzkrieg

2007-03-19T20:58:44Z

Jack Ryan: removing my own typ-o

A blitzkrieg is a quick surprise attack by massive ground and air forces. "Blitzkrieg" is from the German words for lighting ("blitz") and war ("krieg"). High ranking German officers came up with the term to describe their World War 2 strategy, which was used in all the Nazi invasions. The strategy is still used today in quick wars, like the invasion of Iraq in 2004. The war was one between two militaries, but America's superior power, coupled with shock-tactics and speed destroyed the Iraqi military very quickly, much like the German annhihilation of Polish armed forces in September 1939.

[[Category:history]]

Blitzkrieg

2007-03-19T20:57:51Z

Jack Ryan: editing away historical inaccuracies, and adding some info

A blitzkrieg is a quick surprise attack by massive ground and air forces. "Blitzkrieg" is from the German words for lighting ("blitz") and war ("krieg"). High ranking German officers came up with the term to describe their World War 2 strategy, which was used in all the Nazi invasions. The strategy is still used today in quick wars, like the invasion of Iraq in 2004. The war was one between two militaries, but America's superior power, coupled with shock-tactics and speed destroyed teh Iraqi military very quickly, much like the German annhihilation of Polish armed forces in September 1939.

[[Category:history]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-19T01:45:37Z

Jack Ryan: blasting a retard

== Biased Line ==

"Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him"

Whoever said this you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. source that please!

Can you even pretend to be able to source such an outrageous claim? It's lines like this that open this project to ridicule.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Sandbagger and other vandals added those lines. They have been removed and the vandals have been banned. If I am online and I see such lines, with no citations I will report future vandals after they do the same and revert their edits. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 16:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(that he has problems trying to give away)

See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

=== Point 1 ===
"Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical." -- Not surprisingly there's no citation for this! "Very widely accepted"?? You don't have to look far to find low temperature records being set. Here's one link: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020507/content/0205071.guest.html [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 02:25, 10 March 2007 (EST)
: I added in a few more links showing conservatives agreeing with rising temps. I also added in links that show record low temperatures. I want to try and show both sides of the debates. Because a lot of the data is conflicting or the same data yields different results based on the way it is interpreted, it shows that nobody can really know for sure what the truth is or is not. Yet what I did hope to cover in this article is the global warming scam of selling carbon credits, books, videos, and making profits off of oil stocks by those who are pro-global warming as a motive for why they lie or fabricate information to promote global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: The first link says "Excepting the El Nino year of 1998, since about 1979, the Earth's temperature apparently has not been increasing.". It's a link about *not* accepting global warming. The second has a liberal and "ex-liberal" discussing various points. In response to a claim from the liberal that temperatures have been increasing, the "ex-liberal" says: "MANY other physical anthropologists, scientists, and other professionals have refuted that data as well" (with four broken links for citations, so I don't know which refutations he had in mind). And in the third link I see one conservative (Rod Dreher) mentioning "overwhelming scientific evidence" but it's pretty vague, and certainly doesn't justify the claim that the idea of increasing global temperatures is "very widely accepted" by conservatives. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 20:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Point 4 ===
I think this is wrong. "Measures to combat global warming/climate change" are what it talks about. It would be like saying you could say communism and mean the Marshall Plan.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: How do you propose we fix it? Most Wikis have a "fix it yourself" policy, you know. :) I am open to suggestions. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:: It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== FYI ==
The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.[[User:Thisisausername|Thisisausername]] 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm]
: Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Profit Motive ==
While a lot of space is devoted to the idea that proponents of global warming are profiting by it, why isn't the same treatment being given to those who oppose it? Such as the scientists who received funding from the oil companies?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: Probably because I haven't written it yet, trying to revert your vandalism and the vandalism of Sandbagger. It is a work in progress and the more you screw it up the longer it will take me to fix it. I have a headache from the both of you doing nonsense and I have to quit tonight. I'll try to add in more later. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Excuse me? I vandalized nothing, but made an edit that needed editing. Frankly, a lot of your stuff should be wiped for lack of sourcing, but I'm trying real hard to keep in mind what this project is trying to do.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I provided at least 15 sources since I started contributing to this article. I have done a lot of research on the subject for both sides. You may deny vandalizing, and while you weren't as bad as Sandbagger, that is the reason why I didn't report you. I have you on notice. Now it is you who have to provide the sources for the proponents of global warming profiting from it. I was going to do it myself, but since you claim a lot of my stuff needs wiping, I'll give you the honors. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:36, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::You want to report me for vandalism? Because I removed one half of a title that was opinion? Go for it.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Fixing an opinion is not blanking, especially when its explained. You need to take a reality check.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: It is you who is having the issues, not me. There are now over 33 citations in the article backing up most of what I had added to it. It is you who has an allergy to the truth, not me. I am not upset over this, I am just tired. I got better things to do than get into a spitting contest with you over this. I apologize if I said you vandalized it, I have had a bad day, and seeing Sandbagger scribble nonsense all over this article kind of got to me, and I guess I sort of lumped you into it with him. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I tell you what, I'll leave the citations needed in the conservative view section showing the bias of skeptical scientists up to you. Unlike you, I won't bully you into hurrying up and add them in like you have done to me or question the credibility of the source or any of the other political things you have done to me. Take all the time you need, use whatever resources you can find. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Source #16 ==
How can you possibly use a letter to the editor as a source? Especially when said letter had no actual hard evidence in it?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
: I have more sources I haven't used yet. They have quotes showing the evidence of the silencing. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::The problem with your sources (aside from the questionability of their reliability) is that you've attached them to a paragraph discussed the alleged lack of controls in testing. Which none of your sources mention.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Actually I did add in one. I was prevented from doing so because you were editing/saving the article, and I had to delay adding it until later. It is in there now. I even added in sources from conservatives who did political actions to fight global warming or say that global warming is a problem. Are you questioning everything I contributed, or just the parts you politically disagree with yet lack the proof to discredit (or at least have not shown me any proof that they should be discredited)? Remember this is not Wikipedia, there is not supposed to be a liberal bias here, and I am one of the few that actually is adding in some parts of the liberal and pro-global warming side of global warming issues. I am putting in what the skeptics are saying and what conservatives are saying, and if you have a problem with that, you can go back to Wikipedia and start your own edits of the global warming article there, maybe they'll put up with you. Your comments about wiping out all of my comments just prove the liberal side wants to silence and censor critics of global warming, and comments of that nature along with your bad attitude are what made me suspect you were a vandal like Sandbagger in the first place. By the way, what is stopping you from adding citations and paraphrasing them in anyway? A Wiki is a community edited web site, why are you trying to force me to do all of your work for you? I don't take away your free speech and threaten to wipe everything you contributed. In fact I encouraged you to add to the article with at least some citations to prove what you have been saying about it in this talk page. Are you just a critic, with no gumption to actually add to articles and back up what you are trying to say? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 20:52, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== The whole article ==

The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?
: Global warming has become a new religion with Al Gore as the Pope of global warming. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming "religion" similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled "religions" or "agendas," etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.

==Did you know...==
Does anyone here know that the polar ice caps have been shrinking considerably during the past three years? Now what on Mars could be doing that?

Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
: Either it is a natural cycle on Mars, or solar activity increased and is generating more heat. If the later, it disproves pro-global warming scientists. Unless pro-global warming scientists want to claim that Martians are polluting CO2 on Mars to cause global warming, in which there is no evidence of Martians. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Al Gore is no expert and no saint ==
These lines were removed, but they paint a picture of Al Gore:
In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18 So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm
Al Gore is no scientist, and he didn't do anything to halt global warming while in office. I think he does a lot of credibility damage to global warming because of these things. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bias==
Dang, this article is really biased. People need to realise that Earth is changing, and it is being caused by humans. It is sad to see how people are so disrespectful to the work of God. I think that destroying everything great that the Lord has made is a terrible sin and this website should recognise the harm that they are doing to this great gift that God has given us.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 19:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Global warming

2007-03-19T01:38:23Z

Jack Ryan:

'''Global Warming''' is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and political proposals that would follow if the theory is accepted. The theory states that Earth's temperature and CO2 levels are rising at a dangerous rate, and that humans need to take action against this perceived threat.

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== Scientific background ==

The theory of climate change concerns many varied factors, but one of the most commonly cited is that of 'the greenhouse effect.'

This is what occurs when high energy solar radiation loses energy upon entry to the Earth's atmosphere. It then is 'trapped' inside it, thus heating up the Earth, to the extent of approximately 25 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot escape, however, as it has a lower frequency and thus cannot re-penetrate the atmosphere. This is essential for the survival on life on Earth, but proponents of the Climate Change theory argue that this system is being unbalanced by a human-caused (anthropogenic) increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which trap more heat in, raising the overall temperature. They argue that this would have numerous adverse effects; it could cause polar ice to melt, thus raising sea levels, and could cause desertification to already vulnerable regions. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/greenhouse_effect_img.shtml</ref>

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community<ref>http://www.ipcc.ch/</ref>. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, despite their credentials, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. The critics of global warming tend to not be scientists, though, and have no valid scientific evidence contradicting global warming, but instead simply look for every possible slip real scientists make. This involves intentionally misinterpreting scientists (e.g. theory, in the context of global warming, is not the layman's definition, or something along the lines of pure speculation, but means something scientists are not 100% sure of yet. In the scientific community, more than 80% likelihood is synonimous with "gauranteed".) Many with their own agendas believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling [[money|profitable]] oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a green agenda that environmentalists agree with. This is clearly not the case, as scientists and environmentalists have never before agreed to this degree on anything, as scientists tend to be quiet skeptics, and environmentalists tend towards radicalism. The phrase "Global Warming" really includes three separate theories.

:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.

:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.

:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns

:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. These record cold spells tend to be in isolated locations, and the arctic and antarctic, telling indicators of global temperature trends, are both heating, and fast. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by scientists. Points #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics. These skeptics are very rarely

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. {{fact}}

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence {{fact}}, though that is not to say there is unanimity.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate. Channel 4 is notorious for worthless shows, such as a one which implicated George W. Bush as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref>
The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence. However, Al Gore is not on trial here and to attack him is a predictable deflection from the more important issue of whether mankind should be mindful of the planet they inhabit.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. <ref>http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html</ref> It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. {{fact}}

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

== Evangelical view ==
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the [[creation]] of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at a March 8th meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals. Rev. Richard Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God." Cizik warned that "if you put the politics first and make it primary, I believe that is a tragic and fateful choice." The NAE has issued a press release which continues to back Cizik. <ref>http://www.abpnews.com/1833.article</ref>

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==

The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals.

Many scientists who have demonstrated support for global warming have been silenced or censored by the United States government. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

Pro-global warming reports follow scientific method, using both a control and experimental group. Therefore, the majority of scientists today accept global warming as fact. <ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for educating the public about global warming. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Educational website that offers information about An inconvenient truth.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate]
* [http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate] Scientific Blogs maintained by scientists in the field

==References==
<references/>

Sean Hannity

2007-03-18T15:18:39Z

Jack Ryan:

Sean Hannitiy is a conservative talk show host of [[Hannity and Colmes]]. He is known for being a very level headed pundit. He is the conservative side of Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" show.

{{stub2}}