Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Global warming

2010-11-20T01:10:47Z

Moderate: /* Let's put our thinking caps on */

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

good idea

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

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

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

== Other planets ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Media claims ==

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

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

== Quotation ==

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

== Generally ==

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

== Not only liberals ==

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

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

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

==Hackers evidence scam ==

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

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

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

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

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

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Intro==

Cut from intro:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Issues of independent review==

Cut from intro:

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

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

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

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

==Might have to lock the article again==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Warmest year or decade==

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

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

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

==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Global warming

2010-11-20T01:10:09Z

Moderate: /* Let's put our thinking caps on */

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

good idea

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

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

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

== Other planets ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Media claims ==

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

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

== Quotation ==

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

== Generally ==

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

== Not only liberals ==

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

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

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

==Hackers evidence scam ==

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

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

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

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

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

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Intro==

Cut from intro:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Issues of independent review==

Cut from intro:

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

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

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

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

==Might have to lock the article again==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Warmest year or decade==

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

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

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

==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Global warming

2010-11-19T08:53:34Z

Moderate: /* Let's put our thinking caps on */

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

good idea

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

== Other planets ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Media claims ==

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

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

== Quotation ==

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

== Generally ==

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

== Not only liberals ==

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

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

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

==Hackers evidence scam ==

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

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

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

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

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

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Intro==

Cut from intro:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Issues of independent review==

Cut from intro:

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

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

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

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

==Might have to lock the article again==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Warmest year or decade==

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

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

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

==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Global warming

2010-11-19T08:51:00Z

Moderate: /* Other planets */

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

good idea

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

== Other planets ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Media claims ==

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

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

== Quotation ==

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

== Generally ==

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

== Not only liberals ==

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

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

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

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

==Hackers evidence scam ==

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

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

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

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

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

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Intro==

Cut from intro:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Issues of independent review==

Cut from intro:

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

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

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

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

==Might have to lock the article again==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Warmest year or decade==

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

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

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

==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Global warming

2010-11-19T08:50:05Z

Moderate: /* Not only liberals */

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

good idea

== Other planets ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Media claims ==

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

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

== Quotation ==

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

== Generally ==

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

== Not only liberals ==

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

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

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

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

==Hackers evidence scam ==

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

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

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

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

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

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Intro==

Cut from intro:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Issues of independent review==

Cut from intro:

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

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

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

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

==Might have to lock the article again==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Warmest year or decade==

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

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

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

==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Liberal bias

2007-12-30T18:30:30Z

Moderate: /* What is ...? */

{{Protect|TK}}

== Issues with "Examples of Liberal Style" ==

I really think far too many of these read like petty snipes that, rather than addressing the particular inclinations of liberal writers, single out politically neutral manifestations of rudeness or poor logic. Perhaps we should institute the following test: only examples which could not conceivably be issued by liberals against conservatives be included.

What do I mean?

Well, one can imagine a liberal saying that conservatives "claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false". Equally a liberal might suggest a conservative guilty of "attempting to control the rules of evidence used in a debate." About half of this entry constitutes hopelessly woolly thinking. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 16:44, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

How can you include the section on "emboldening the terrorists" when a majority of Americans clearly believe we should leave, while citing majority opinions in your favor elsewhere? --[[User:Moderate]] 13:28, 30 December 2007 (EDT)

== What is ...? ==

This article has no definition of what a Liberal Bias is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd go for some citations, too. And some fries. :D [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Should the Daily Show and Colbert Report be on here? Neither make any claim to be unbiased, and Jon Stewart has occasionally derided interviewers (most famously on Crossfire, when he wasn't calling them bad for America) for assuming he was a real news outlet and should be expected to act like one. There's a difference between, say, Air America (Liberal Spin, or Liberal Perspective, depending on how nice you are) and NPR (Liberal Bias) [[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 01:02 15 March 2007

:I agree, but if we remove the "Duh..." cases, we're basically left only with unsourced statements. ;) I'm not sure what the point of the article is, anyway. If the things in question have a liberal bias, just say it in the article and supply a source.</opinion> --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I also think this article should include a description of what [[liberal]] bias is so that the [[Conservative]]s amongst us know what to watch out for.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

uh, momoka....jon stewart is a COMEDIAN! he is not a news caster... and colbert? how can you possibly take him seriously? i watch those shows for LAUGHS...[[User:Moderate]] 13:31, 30 December 2007 (EDT)

==Unreferenced statements==

Cut from intro:

:The problem with liberal bias is not just the harm which advocacy of false liberal notions does (which is bad enough), but that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness. Many of them quite literally and sincerely consider themselves "middle of the road" (see [[Dan Rather]], as mentioned in Goldberg's ''[[Bias (book)]]''.

[[user:Hojimachong]] called this "original research". That stings a bit, because I'm a refugee from Wikipedia where "OR" is a big no-no. So I'll try to dig up some referencs for this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, I think I've provided 2 citations for the idea that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness and 1 citation for Dan Rather calling a Liberal newspaper "middle of the road". This still might not be up to encyclopedia quality, because it's only one source: [[Bernard Goldberg]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== References that don't support the item they're referencing ==

Everything in it should have a citation.

And the citation should be a published statement by someone authoritative—a recognized conservative is fine, but not "me and my brother"—that ''says the thing in question is liberal.''

What set me off is that there '''is''' a reference for Dan Rather's being considered liberal. But the reference does not say Dan Rather is liberal. It says Dan Rather things the New York Times is middle-of-the-road.

There's a difference between "X says Dan Rather is liberal" and "Dan Rather says Y is middle-of-the-road."

Particularly when no source has been cited for the New York Times' supposed liberal bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
==According to this site==
The nation's major media outlets ''seem'' to be owned by corporations which are by no means "liberal", except, perhaps, in the way they have liberally given to [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | politicians.]+--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative bias ==

Could someone who knows please consider writing the matching [[Conservative bias]] article listing Conservative news sources? I am surprised and confused that Conservapedia criticizes Wikipedia by claiming that most Americans are Conservative, but that what I see as America's most reliable news sources are all listed as having a liberal bias. Thankyou. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: Done; I don't understand this either (but remember FOX News, purveyor of truth and justice ;), isn't listed), but the powers that be won't appreciate anyone changing it. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*Please! Whilst the majority of Americans are far more traditional/conservative than the news outlets are, and those who work for them, the fact that Fox News, in unbiased studies (and preception) is less "Liberal", it doesn't make Fox News "Conservative", just fair. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why does the Conservative American public continue to buy and read such biased newspapers, radio and television stations, instead of putting their money where their mouth is and creating a reputable conservative alternative? Is Rupert Murdoch the only person who saw the ''majority'' of Americans as a potential market!? Does he/News Corp have major newspapers too, or just the Fox News television channel? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 23:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*News Corp is one of the world's largest media holding companies. Its holdings includes ''TV Guide'', ''Sky'' and ''Direct-TV'' satellite services, the various ''Fox'' networks, ''Harper-Collins'' publishing, The ''London Times'', New York ''Post'', dozens of newspapers in Australia and the ''20th Century Fox'' motion picture and television studios. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Disney owns ABC, Disney gave GWB's 2000 campaign 640K.
:Westinghouse owns CBS. (No political contributions cited.)
:General Electric owns NBC, GE gave GWB $1.1 million in 2000
:TIME-WARNER TBS owns: CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%). Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
:TIME-WARNER TBS gave GWB $1.6 million in 2000.
:NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch BoD Phillip Morris):Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000.
:::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, please don't make me embarass you, with your posting of totally distorted and biased figures. You are in my area of expertise, and most of those coroporations gave exactly the same, if not more, to Democratic Party candidates. You have to go to real stats, not moveon.org for them! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::I don't get embarrassed , only enlightened, [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | here] is my source. I defer to your expertise. Thank you for your kind attention to my little additions around here. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:::Thanks TK. I meant ''American'' newspapers, as I know News Corp is the largest newspaper publisher in Australia. The only US newspaper you mentioned is the New York Post. Is that a widely-distributed and well-known newspaper like the NY Times and Washington Post, but Conservative? It's not mentioned in the references for liberal/conservative bias, that I can see. Is there widely perceived to be a liberal/conservative bias in the movie houses such as 20th Century Fox? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Cracker, the donation amounts to GWB don't tell me much without knowing whether they were given before or after he was the endorsed Republican presidential candidate - did they actually support him against Al Gore/John Kerry, or against other Republicans to ensure they had the right Republican? Note that while I (think I) understand the US political ''process'', I do not have a good grasp on the ''politics'' of the various people, along with many of the other non-American readers here, so may well be asking naive questions to someone in the system. Sorry, but if we don't ask, we don't learn. Your source is dated 2003, but was wrong anyway - it says News Corp owns Ansett Airlines. It sold its 50% interest in early 2000, and the airline went bust in 2001. I don't know if it got any media info wrong. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I was only providing "who owns what" The campaign contributions just happened to be on the site I cited so I included that as well. I suppose my point was that Westinghouse, GE, News Corp, and Disney are not known in the USA as bastions of liberalism. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

*That site must need some kind of Liberal password, cause it won't resolve for me..... :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::Try it now. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::Ouch! --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::GE and Westinghouse probably care more about Defense and electricity contracts and policies than they do about media bias. If they exercise editorial control, that is likely to be the focus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, that would explain NBC hiring Rick Kaplan to run its news. :p Time-Warner, one should see that Ted Turner is one of the largest stockholders. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== The [[BBC]] ==

Ed Driscoll wrote:
*Austin Bay asked me to guest host the Pajamas Media "Blog Week In Review" podcast this week, so I interviewed Robin Aitken, the former BBC journalist and on-air personality who left the network and has written a new book, very much in the vein of Bernard Goldberg's books on American media bias, titled Can We Trust The BBC. I tried to aim the questions towards an American perspective on the topic, but then, how could I not? Aitken also discussed in depth the BBC's biases regarding Iraq, Israel, and the Palestinians. Regular readers of this blog won't exactly be shocked where the BBC comes down on these issues, but for those who still hold out a belief that the BBC is entirely objective, its an eye-opener. [http://eddriscoll.com/archives/cat_oh_that_liberal_media.php] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Technically the term "objective" is objective, therefore I wonder if it is differences in culture that can explain any bias by the BBC. Surely the BBC is less geared towards sensationalism then American media and it focuses on the issues that are being discussed rather then simply telling the masses where the majority of their opinion lies. This would be more encouraging of a neutral environment where the individual is left to make their own choices. Britain is considerably less puritian in its customs and culture as well as more liberal. The fact that a liberal bias may exist is less important, though then whether it allows for opposing views to be formed. I am unable to do anything more than simply offer a generalization, however, as issues are exceedingly complex and diverse as are the ways of covering them, but surely the issue is more complex then whether the BBC is biased or not.--[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== TK? ==

:(Protection log) (diff; hist) . . TK (Talk | contribs) (protected "Liberal bias": Warning of locking soon.... [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Explain, please... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*Just checking to see how many keyholes you're peeping into. :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== It's locked? ==
''Note: This page has been locked so that only registered users can edit it.''
I am Gulik's complete lack of surprise. But last I checked, I _am_ a registered user. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 01:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Middle of the Road ==
" During a phone conversation, Bernard Goldberg asked him, "What do you consider the New York Times? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." "
:The article uses this quote to prove that Dan Rather has a liberal bias? That seems rather foolish to me considering that if left is liberal and right is conservative the middle would be no bias at all. [[User:Dilbert|Dilbert]] 02:27, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Communism for Dummies ==

Can anyone tell me what this is? The others are all famous, but I haven't heard of this one. It was entered by Hektor back in March, and he was later blocked for questionable edits, so I'd just like to verify we don't have a red herring here. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:It looks very suspicious. It should be removed because of the circumstances you just described. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:05, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Sigh. There is a whole line of books with the tag ....."For Dummies" explaining things like "Computers for Dummies", "Windows XP for Dummies", etc. Check Barnes and Noble's website. Or Amazon.com. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:31, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes my friend I have a few of those, but in regards to liberal bias if that is what was meant then that wouldn't exactly be a good example. I was just wondering if there was some infamous show or newspaper by that name that I wasn't aware of. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Ahh! Wasn't a valid link anyway! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:55, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Media bias ==

So... since no one can agree whether media etc. are "accused of having liberal bias" or "have well known liberal bias," why don't we follow [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandment #2]? If it's so obvious, shouldn't it be written somewhere objective? (And no, that page of out-of-context quotes about minor examples of bias can't be a source; at least not the only source). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:huh? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I seem to be rambling and in need of sleep. Let me try again: we are on the cusp of a revert war over the issue of whether the media is "accused" of having a liberal bias, or whether they have a "well known" liberal bias. Why don't we just add some sources instead of reverting? See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandments #2 and #5], as well as the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette Editing Etiquette] ''("put your "facts" in neutral terms. For example, Secular geologists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old is better than The world is 4.5 billion years old")''. According to the rules, both versions of the statement in contention are not acceptible in their current form. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:31, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:::ok.. so you mean like, "according to longtime media watcher and analyst so-and-so the [[MSM]] is dominated by commie stooges & useful idiots", for example? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Uh, yeah, as long as it follows the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments#_note-1 footnote] to commandment two: "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others." Though good luck finding an authoritative source calling the NYTimes "commie stooges & useful idiots" ;-) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

*Great sourcing on the CBS News bias, Rob. I don't think we will see Uncle Walter issuing an apology will we? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 02:05, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== The United Nations? ==

I'm not sure if the United Nations fits in here. It's a liberal organization, yes, but it wouldn't seem right to put, say, the ACLU or the Democratic Party in here, as it's not a media organization per se. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:50, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:A gathering of nations in a forum for discussion originally created to prevent a third world war is inherently liberal? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:39, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::Actually, yes, if you use a different definition of the word liberal. In international politic theory the spectrum is more often broken into "realist" and "liberal". In a nutshell, a realist believes in the use of power and force to ensure security and enforce policy, and a liberal believes in organizations to ensure security and enforce policy. In these terms, the UN is the definition of a liberal solution :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::: You make [[liberalism]] sound less like [[evil]] than some others here. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:24, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::In the olden days, Americans could always say, "Let the UN handle it;" thank the Lord for Conservapedia, cause now we can see just exactly what this attitude of letting "UN Peacekeepers handle it" really means: [[United Nations#UN Sexual Abuse Scandals]]. [[User:Robs|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::"Just let the Americans handle it" worked well too, until the Abu Ghraib pictures were leaked. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes! One should be highly offended at terrorists and criminals being humiliated! Of course that is on the same level as stealing billions from the poor, letting hundreds of thousands starve, and aiding anti-Semites.....of course. Kazumaru, see [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:48, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes indeed. Those sadistic American torture techniques, making Mighty Islamic Warriors of God wear women's panties. What will the neighbors think? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

:* I appreciate you only disagreeing after you banned me, TK, however... I'm not referring to the panties-on-head thing. I'm referring solely to legitimate acts of torture, like [[Waterboarding]]. And I don't mean surfing.

::*Do you have any proof whatsoever, any proof that would fit WP's Attribution policies, and the criteria here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#External_criticism:_authenticity_and_provenance Historical method: '''authenticity and provenance'''], to prove (a) waterboarding was '''ever''' approved by '''any''' US Govt. Executive Agency and/or Dept., and (b) (most importantly) waterboarding was '''ever used''' in recent years? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

:* Haven't a clue what any of that has to do with deceit, though... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:32, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== "More then half of Americans agree that their is liberal media bias"==
Here is an interesting poll which gives more evidence of liberal media bias [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809222839.jzdcwmy8&show_article=1], you may want to consider adding that information to this article.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:06, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually that ''is'' an interesting poll, but you're reading words into it that's not there. First, it simply says that 'more than half of Americans say new orgs...are biased'. It does '''not''' say 'liberal bias'. Many, many people do indeed believe the MSM is biased, and many believe it is biased towards the right. Bias is most obvious on Fox News, who make a mockery of their tacky marketing phrase 'Fair & Balanced'. Anybody can see their entire output is heavily slanted to the right (cf. the use of the phrase 'Homicide Bombers', the only org outside the White House to use the phrase; even the Army uses the phrase 'Suicide Bomber', as it's more accurate). But bias is also visible in places like the NYT, which have a tendency to bias left.

Bias is everywhere, and the sooner people on the Right understand that the Left believe this too, the better. If all sides of the argument see bias, maybe we should fix our news? [[User:PhilLynott|PhilLynott]] 22:20, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:That is a very interesting analysis; so liberals are pro-"suicide bomber" whereas right-wingers in the White House and FOX News oppose it. Even the Pentagon has jumped on the liberal bandwagon with this one, defying thier right-wing bosses and cow towing to the liberal slant. Hmmmm, that's news itself. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:30, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:We should include the quote from Diane Sawyer when she said she was being interviewed for jury duty. A lawyer asked her if she could be objective. She responded with something like, "I'm a journalist. I'm always objective." The Courtroom broke out into a roar of laughter. Sawyer says it was the most embarassing moment of her life. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:12, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, after a second look it did not say liberal bias, thanks for the catch. But still, if you look through the article, it seems to imply leftest bias in the media. --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:33, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Poor Diane. :-( A long way from those long walks on the beach with Richard Nixon in exile. Sawyer was part of the very small staff working for Nixon post-exile. She had a nible mind, and a fierce dedication to Nixon. Then she moved East, married Mike Nichols...and what happened! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:23, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:*[[Monica Crowley]] now is the spiritual heir of Nixon's thinking, although Hillary Clinton has been the most successful at the ballot box using everything she learned from Nixon. Amazing, how the true heirs of Nixonion thought all seem to be women. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
*Nixon said several times he was profoundly influenced by his Mother's values and thoughts....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Example 17 ==

Chamberlain was a Conservative; the last Liberal PM was Lloyd George (1916-22). (Source: http://www.annualreport.gov.uk/output/Page123.asp) [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 10:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:No, you see, he's an unpopular figure so he becomes a liberal by default. [[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 14:45, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

::Right. Let's call it "liberalism in reverse." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:47, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*If John Kerry, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy all switched parties and/or announced they were "Conservative", would that make it so? Fuzzy, your thinking is fuzzy, it seems. Although I do admit it is sometimes difficult to translate conservative UK to conservative US. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:56, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

::The broader question is over the [[Communazi pact]] and the policy of [[appeasement]]. Chamberlain, like [[Rudolf Hess]], thought peace between Germany & Great Britain was possible. Was Chamberlain a Communazi? I don't know, we'll have to look into it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:07, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Did Chamberlain ever switch parties? It seems he was MP for the Conservative Party since 1918, took part in governments of the Conservative Party, and later became their leader. Please correct me if I am wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:This is where the term [[Western betrayal#Czechoslovakia]] came from; the [[Treaty of Versailles]] set up many trip wires. Britian under Chamberlain failed to maintain thier obligations. At the time, it was labelled "[[appeasement]]", however now in retrospect, we see more and more [[Comintern]] [[subversion]] through the processes of setting up [[Lenin]]ist style [[united front]]s. All falls into the category of Cold War revisionism since the opening of KGB, Comintern, and NSA Archives. [[Allen Weinstein]] is now the [[Archivist of the United States]], and we are still collecting and categorizing documents. The process of actual interpretation is in its infancy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:13, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Example 25 ==

The example 25 is incomprehensible. Can somebody rephrase it to make clear what the point actually is. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:19, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? At this hour, it's about the best I can manage. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:42, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Point 25 is still confusing, close to being unintelligible. If CP wants to refer to it elsewhere, it better be clear what is meant. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:47, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

This is completely ridiculous. "Liberals take up more of their allotted time in debates." This is just the sort of school-yard jibe that gets Conservapedia a bad name with liberal outlets. There is no statistical basis to it and it just sound like the ravings of somebody who once got talked over on a school debate. Delete it.--[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 12:13, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

== Example 24 ==

This point confuses me a little. The proof that someone's a liberal is their denial of it? Doesn't this inadvertently encompass those are actually aren't liberals? This is truly dangerous territory! (Imagine a mental disease is diagnosed by the patient's denial of having it - how do we actually find out whether someone actually has it or not? A normal person who logically says "I do not have this disease" is equally "proven" to have it then someone who actually has it, according to this example) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Example 34 ==

This footnote is confusing. I'm assuming this is a typo. Would seem to be an example of conservatives "demanding an apology". Don't know if it's an apology per se, but definitely doesn't strengthen the argument in any way.

== Uncyclopedia ==

Add [[Uncyclopedia]] to the list at the top. They sport heavy liberal bias and hate speech against conservatives. May God have mercy on their souls for their blasphemy! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 15:40, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== 'Liberalism' ==

I go along with much of what is said but here in Brit the word 'liberal' has a somewhat different connotation. We have here three mainstrwam political parties: Labour (or, as it likes to call itself nowaday, 'New Labour' - even more extremist than 'old' Labour!), Conservative (aka 'Tory'), and Liberals (aka 'LibDems'!). There are a handful of other parties e.g. the BNP or British National Party, UKIP, the UK Independence Party, and there are a number of locality-based parties. Of the mainstream parties, the Tories are generally considered to be the party of the right but this is not necessarily so.

Historically, the Liberal Party (formerly the Whigs), now incorporated into the LibDems, was the party of the right at which time the Tories were considered to be 'middle of the road'!

Our biggest media presentation problem here is the BBC, which whilst repetedly saying they are 'independent' has in fact a disgusting 'liberal' agenda all of its own. And we have to cough up a hefty licence fee for watching television which goes into BBC coffers - even though we may not ever watch BBC! In fact, according to a strict interpretation of the law, we are strictly liable to pay this even if we ''never'' watch any TV but have a computer monitor! {{unsigned|Celtish}} 13:09, 14 September 2007

*Yes, Celtish! The true mark of Socialism, it is. You are invited to improve our article on the [[BBC]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:31, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 21:38, 14 September 2007 (EDT) Done [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 14:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

BBC is not a for profit entity, is it? unlike most of the so-called "mainstream" media in the US. Neither is BBC like the American Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which subsists on Jim & Tammy Faye Baker style beg-a-thons and the public purse. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Rob, the BBC is more like PBS, than not, however. Both controlled by appointed boards, made by the Government, and funded, in whole or in part, by it. In the UK, unlike the U.S., they are forced to pay a tax to maintain the BBC, which, like I said, is more socialistic then what we have. Not better by much, however. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:05, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Although the BBC is technically not-for-profit it does have an enormous worldwide revenue from the resale of programmes and repeat fees, from the sale of CDs, videos, DVDs, and a wide range of books and magazines. It is in fact a major publisher in its own right. [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 21:38, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal bias

2007-12-30T18:28:37Z

Moderate: /* Issues with "Examples of Liberal Style" */

{{Protect|TK}}

== Issues with "Examples of Liberal Style" ==

I really think far too many of these read like petty snipes that, rather than addressing the particular inclinations of liberal writers, single out politically neutral manifestations of rudeness or poor logic. Perhaps we should institute the following test: only examples which could not conceivably be issued by liberals against conservatives be included.

What do I mean?

Well, one can imagine a liberal saying that conservatives "claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false". Equally a liberal might suggest a conservative guilty of "attempting to control the rules of evidence used in a debate." About half of this entry constitutes hopelessly woolly thinking. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 16:44, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

How can you include the section on "emboldening the terrorists" when a majority of Americans clearly believe we should leave, while citing majority opinions in your favor elsewhere? --[[User:Moderate]] 13:28, 30 December 2007 (EDT)

== What is ...? ==

This article has no definition of what a Liberal Bias is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd go for some citations, too. And some fries. :D [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Should the Daily Show and Colbert Report be on here? Neither make any claim to be unbiased, and Jon Stewart has occasionally derided interviewers (most famously on Crossfire, when he wasn't calling them bad for America) for assuming he was a real news outlet and should be expected to act like one. There's a difference between, say, Air America (Liberal Spin, or Liberal Perspective, depending on how nice you are) and NPR (Liberal Bias) [[User:Momoka|Momoka]] 01:02 15 March 2007

:I agree, but if we remove the "Duh..." cases, we're basically left only with unsourced statements. ;) I'm not sure what the point of the article is, anyway. If the things in question have a liberal bias, just say it in the article and supply a source.</opinion> --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I also think this article should include a description of what [[liberal]] bias is so that the [[Conservative]]s amongst us know what to watch out for.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Unreferenced statements==

Cut from intro:

:The problem with liberal bias is not just the harm which advocacy of false liberal notions does (which is bad enough), but that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness. Many of them quite literally and sincerely consider themselves "middle of the road" (see [[Dan Rather]], as mentioned in Goldberg's ''[[Bias (book)]]''.

[[user:Hojimachong]] called this "original research". That stings a bit, because I'm a refugee from Wikipedia where "OR" is a big no-no. So I'll try to dig up some referencs for this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, I think I've provided 2 citations for the idea that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness and 1 citation for Dan Rather calling a Liberal newspaper "middle of the road". This still might not be up to encyclopedia quality, because it's only one source: [[Bernard Goldberg]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 01:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== References that don't support the item they're referencing ==

Everything in it should have a citation.

And the citation should be a published statement by someone authoritative—a recognized conservative is fine, but not "me and my brother"—that ''says the thing in question is liberal.''

What set me off is that there '''is''' a reference for Dan Rather's being considered liberal. But the reference does not say Dan Rather is liberal. It says Dan Rather things the New York Times is middle-of-the-road.

There's a difference between "X says Dan Rather is liberal" and "Dan Rather says Y is middle-of-the-road."

Particularly when no source has been cited for the New York Times' supposed liberal bias. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
==According to this site==
The nation's major media outlets ''seem'' to be owned by corporations which are by no means "liberal", except, perhaps, in the way they have liberally given to [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | politicians.]+--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative bias ==

Could someone who knows please consider writing the matching [[Conservative bias]] article listing Conservative news sources? I am surprised and confused that Conservapedia criticizes Wikipedia by claiming that most Americans are Conservative, but that what I see as America's most reliable news sources are all listed as having a liberal bias. Thankyou. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: Done; I don't understand this either (but remember FOX News, purveyor of truth and justice ;), isn't listed), but the powers that be won't appreciate anyone changing it. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*Please! Whilst the majority of Americans are far more traditional/conservative than the news outlets are, and those who work for them, the fact that Fox News, in unbiased studies (and preception) is less "Liberal", it doesn't make Fox News "Conservative", just fair. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::Why does the Conservative American public continue to buy and read such biased newspapers, radio and television stations, instead of putting their money where their mouth is and creating a reputable conservative alternative? Is Rupert Murdoch the only person who saw the ''majority'' of Americans as a potential market!? Does he/News Corp have major newspapers too, or just the Fox News television channel? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 23:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*News Corp is one of the world's largest media holding companies. Its holdings includes ''TV Guide'', ''Sky'' and ''Direct-TV'' satellite services, the various ''Fox'' networks, ''Harper-Collins'' publishing, The ''London Times'', New York ''Post'', dozens of newspapers in Australia and the ''20th Century Fox'' motion picture and television studios. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Disney owns ABC, Disney gave GWB's 2000 campaign 640K.
:Westinghouse owns CBS. (No political contributions cited.)
:General Electric owns NBC, GE gave GWB $1.1 million in 2000
:TIME-WARNER TBS owns: CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%). Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
:TIME-WARNER TBS gave GWB $1.6 million in 2000.
:NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch BoD Phillip Morris):Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000.
:::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 00:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, please don't make me embarass you, with your posting of totally distorted and biased figures. You are in my area of expertise, and most of those coroporations gave exactly the same, if not more, to Democratic Party candidates. You have to go to real stats, not moveon.org for them! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::I don't get embarrassed , only enlightened, [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | here] is my source. I defer to your expertise. Thank you for your kind attention to my little additions around here. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:::Thanks TK. I meant ''American'' newspapers, as I know News Corp is the largest newspaper publisher in Australia. The only US newspaper you mentioned is the New York Post. Is that a widely-distributed and well-known newspaper like the NY Times and Washington Post, but Conservative? It's not mentioned in the references for liberal/conservative bias, that I can see. Is there widely perceived to be a liberal/conservative bias in the movie houses such as 20th Century Fox? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Cracker, the donation amounts to GWB don't tell me much without knowing whether they were given before or after he was the endorsed Republican presidential candidate - did they actually support him against Al Gore/John Kerry, or against other Republicans to ensure they had the right Republican? Note that while I (think I) understand the US political ''process'', I do not have a good grasp on the ''politics'' of the various people, along with many of the other non-American readers here, so may well be asking naive questions to someone in the system. Sorry, but if we don't ask, we don't learn. Your source is dated 2003, but was wrong anyway - it says News Corp owns Ansett Airlines. It sold its 50% interest in early 2000, and the airline went bust in 2001. I don't know if it got any media info wrong. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I was only providing "who owns what" The campaign contributions just happened to be on the site I cited so I included that as well. I suppose my point was that Westinghouse, GE, News Corp, and Disney are not known in the USA as bastions of liberalism. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

*That site must need some kind of Liberal password, cause it won't resolve for me..... :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::Try it now. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::Ouch! --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::GE and Westinghouse probably care more about Defense and electricity contracts and policies than they do about media bias. If they exercise editorial control, that is likely to be the focus. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, that would explain NBC hiring Rick Kaplan to run its news. :p Time-Warner, one should see that Ted Turner is one of the largest stockholders. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== The [[BBC]] ==

Ed Driscoll wrote:
*Austin Bay asked me to guest host the Pajamas Media "Blog Week In Review" podcast this week, so I interviewed Robin Aitken, the former BBC journalist and on-air personality who left the network and has written a new book, very much in the vein of Bernard Goldberg's books on American media bias, titled Can We Trust The BBC. I tried to aim the questions towards an American perspective on the topic, but then, how could I not? Aitken also discussed in depth the BBC's biases regarding Iraq, Israel, and the Palestinians. Regular readers of this blog won't exactly be shocked where the BBC comes down on these issues, but for those who still hold out a belief that the BBC is entirely objective, its an eye-opener. [http://eddriscoll.com/archives/cat_oh_that_liberal_media.php] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Technically the term "objective" is objective, therefore I wonder if it is differences in culture that can explain any bias by the BBC. Surely the BBC is less geared towards sensationalism then American media and it focuses on the issues that are being discussed rather then simply telling the masses where the majority of their opinion lies. This would be more encouraging of a neutral environment where the individual is left to make their own choices. Britain is considerably less puritian in its customs and culture as well as more liberal. The fact that a liberal bias may exist is less important, though then whether it allows for opposing views to be formed. I am unable to do anything more than simply offer a generalization, however, as issues are exceedingly complex and diverse as are the ways of covering them, but surely the issue is more complex then whether the BBC is biased or not.--[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== TK? ==

:(Protection log) (diff; hist) . . TK (Talk | contribs) (protected "Liberal bias": Warning of locking soon.... [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Explain, please... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

*Just checking to see how many keyholes you're peeping into. :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== It's locked? ==
''Note: This page has been locked so that only registered users can edit it.''
I am Gulik's complete lack of surprise. But last I checked, I _am_ a registered user. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 01:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Middle of the Road ==
" During a phone conversation, Bernard Goldberg asked him, "What do you consider the New York Times? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." "
:The article uses this quote to prove that Dan Rather has a liberal bias? That seems rather foolish to me considering that if left is liberal and right is conservative the middle would be no bias at all. [[User:Dilbert|Dilbert]] 02:27, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Communism for Dummies ==

Can anyone tell me what this is? The others are all famous, but I haven't heard of this one. It was entered by Hektor back in March, and he was later blocked for questionable edits, so I'd just like to verify we don't have a red herring here. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:It looks very suspicious. It should be removed because of the circumstances you just described. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 17:05, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Sigh. There is a whole line of books with the tag ....."For Dummies" explaining things like "Computers for Dummies", "Windows XP for Dummies", etc. Check Barnes and Noble's website. Or Amazon.com. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:31, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes my friend I have a few of those, but in regards to liberal bias if that is what was meant then that wouldn't exactly be a good example. I was just wondering if there was some infamous show or newspaper by that name that I wasn't aware of. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Ahh! Wasn't a valid link anyway! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:55, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Media bias ==

So... since no one can agree whether media etc. are "accused of having liberal bias" or "have well known liberal bias," why don't we follow [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandment #2]? If it's so obvious, shouldn't it be written somewhere objective? (And no, that page of out-of-context quotes about minor examples of bias can't be a source; at least not the only source). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:huh? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::I seem to be rambling and in need of sleep. Let me try again: we are on the cusp of a revert war over the issue of whether the media is "accused" of having a liberal bias, or whether they have a "well known" liberal bias. Why don't we just add some sources instead of reverting? See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandments #2 and #5], as well as the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette Editing Etiquette] ''("put your "facts" in neutral terms. For example, Secular geologists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old is better than The world is 4.5 billion years old")''. According to the rules, both versions of the statement in contention are not acceptible in their current form. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:31, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:::ok.. so you mean like, "according to longtime media watcher and analyst so-and-so the [[MSM]] is dominated by commie stooges & useful idiots", for example? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Uh, yeah, as long as it follows the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments#_note-1 footnote] to commandment two: "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others." Though good luck finding an authoritative source calling the NYTimes "commie stooges & useful idiots" ;-) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

*Great sourcing on the CBS News bias, Rob. I don't think we will see Uncle Walter issuing an apology will we? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 02:05, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== The United Nations? ==

I'm not sure if the United Nations fits in here. It's a liberal organization, yes, but it wouldn't seem right to put, say, the ACLU or the Democratic Party in here, as it's not a media organization per se. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:50, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:A gathering of nations in a forum for discussion originally created to prevent a third world war is inherently liberal? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:39, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::Actually, yes, if you use a different definition of the word liberal. In international politic theory the spectrum is more often broken into "realist" and "liberal". In a nutshell, a realist believes in the use of power and force to ensure security and enforce policy, and a liberal believes in organizations to ensure security and enforce policy. In these terms, the UN is the definition of a liberal solution :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::: You make [[liberalism]] sound less like [[evil]] than some others here. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:24, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::In the olden days, Americans could always say, "Let the UN handle it;" thank the Lord for Conservapedia, cause now we can see just exactly what this attitude of letting "UN Peacekeepers handle it" really means: [[United Nations#UN Sexual Abuse Scandals]]. [[User:Robs|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::"Just let the Americans handle it" worked well too, until the Abu Ghraib pictures were leaked. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes! One should be highly offended at terrorists and criminals being humiliated! Of course that is on the same level as stealing billions from the poor, letting hundreds of thousands starve, and aiding anti-Semites.....of course. Kazumaru, see [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:48, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes indeed. Those sadistic American torture techniques, making Mighty Islamic Warriors of God wear women's panties. What will the neighbors think? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

:* I appreciate you only disagreeing after you banned me, TK, however... I'm not referring to the panties-on-head thing. I'm referring solely to legitimate acts of torture, like [[Waterboarding]]. And I don't mean surfing.

::*Do you have any proof whatsoever, any proof that would fit WP's Attribution policies, and the criteria here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#External_criticism:_authenticity_and_provenance Historical method: '''authenticity and provenance'''], to prove (a) waterboarding was '''ever''' approved by '''any''' US Govt. Executive Agency and/or Dept., and (b) (most importantly) waterboarding was '''ever used''' in recent years? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

:* Haven't a clue what any of that has to do with deceit, though... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:32, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== "More then half of Americans agree that their is liberal media bias"==
Here is an interesting poll which gives more evidence of liberal media bias [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809222839.jzdcwmy8&show_article=1], you may want to consider adding that information to this article.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:06, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually that ''is'' an interesting poll, but you're reading words into it that's not there. First, it simply says that 'more than half of Americans say new orgs...are biased'. It does '''not''' say 'liberal bias'. Many, many people do indeed believe the MSM is biased, and many believe it is biased towards the right. Bias is most obvious on Fox News, who make a mockery of their tacky marketing phrase 'Fair & Balanced'. Anybody can see their entire output is heavily slanted to the right (cf. the use of the phrase 'Homicide Bombers', the only org outside the White House to use the phrase; even the Army uses the phrase 'Suicide Bomber', as it's more accurate). But bias is also visible in places like the NYT, which have a tendency to bias left.

Bias is everywhere, and the sooner people on the Right understand that the Left believe this too, the better. If all sides of the argument see bias, maybe we should fix our news? [[User:PhilLynott|PhilLynott]] 22:20, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:That is a very interesting analysis; so liberals are pro-"suicide bomber" whereas right-wingers in the White House and FOX News oppose it. Even the Pentagon has jumped on the liberal bandwagon with this one, defying thier right-wing bosses and cow towing to the liberal slant. Hmmmm, that's news itself. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:30, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:We should include the quote from Diane Sawyer when she said she was being interviewed for jury duty. A lawyer asked her if she could be objective. She responded with something like, "I'm a journalist. I'm always objective." The Courtroom broke out into a roar of laughter. Sawyer says it was the most embarassing moment of her life. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:12, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, after a second look it did not say liberal bias, thanks for the catch. But still, if you look through the article, it seems to imply leftest bias in the media. --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:33, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Poor Diane. :-( A long way from those long walks on the beach with Richard Nixon in exile. Sawyer was part of the very small staff working for Nixon post-exile. She had a nible mind, and a fierce dedication to Nixon. Then she moved East, married Mike Nichols...and what happened! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:23, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:*[[Monica Crowley]] now is the spiritual heir of Nixon's thinking, although Hillary Clinton has been the most successful at the ballot box using everything she learned from Nixon. Amazing, how the true heirs of Nixonion thought all seem to be women. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
*Nixon said several times he was profoundly influenced by his Mother's values and thoughts....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Example 17 ==

Chamberlain was a Conservative; the last Liberal PM was Lloyd George (1916-22). (Source: http://www.annualreport.gov.uk/output/Page123.asp) [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 10:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:No, you see, he's an unpopular figure so he becomes a liberal by default. [[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 14:45, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

::Right. Let's call it "liberalism in reverse." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:47, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*If John Kerry, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy all switched parties and/or announced they were "Conservative", would that make it so? Fuzzy, your thinking is fuzzy, it seems. Although I do admit it is sometimes difficult to translate conservative UK to conservative US. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:56, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

::The broader question is over the [[Communazi pact]] and the policy of [[appeasement]]. Chamberlain, like [[Rudolf Hess]], thought peace between Germany & Great Britain was possible. Was Chamberlain a Communazi? I don't know, we'll have to look into it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:07, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Did Chamberlain ever switch parties? It seems he was MP for the Conservative Party since 1918, took part in governments of the Conservative Party, and later became their leader. Please correct me if I am wrong. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:This is where the term [[Western betrayal#Czechoslovakia]] came from; the [[Treaty of Versailles]] set up many trip wires. Britian under Chamberlain failed to maintain thier obligations. At the time, it was labelled "[[appeasement]]", however now in retrospect, we see more and more [[Comintern]] [[subversion]] through the processes of setting up [[Lenin]]ist style [[united front]]s. All falls into the category of Cold War revisionism since the opening of KGB, Comintern, and NSA Archives. [[Allen Weinstein]] is now the [[Archivist of the United States]], and we are still collecting and categorizing documents. The process of actual interpretation is in its infancy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:13, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Example 25 ==

The example 25 is incomprehensible. Can somebody rephrase it to make clear what the point actually is. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:19, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? At this hour, it's about the best I can manage. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:42, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Point 25 is still confusing, close to being unintelligible. If CP wants to refer to it elsewhere, it better be clear what is meant. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:47, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

This is completely ridiculous. "Liberals take up more of their allotted time in debates." This is just the sort of school-yard jibe that gets Conservapedia a bad name with liberal outlets. There is no statistical basis to it and it just sound like the ravings of somebody who once got talked over on a school debate. Delete it.--[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 12:13, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

== Example 24 ==

This point confuses me a little. The proof that someone's a liberal is their denial of it? Doesn't this inadvertently encompass those are actually aren't liberals? This is truly dangerous territory! (Imagine a mental disease is diagnosed by the patient's denial of having it - how do we actually find out whether someone actually has it or not? A normal person who logically says "I do not have this disease" is equally "proven" to have it then someone who actually has it, according to this example) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Example 34 ==

This footnote is confusing. I'm assuming this is a typo. Would seem to be an example of conservatives "demanding an apology". Don't know if it's an apology per se, but definitely doesn't strengthen the argument in any way.

== Uncyclopedia ==

Add [[Uncyclopedia]] to the list at the top. They sport heavy liberal bias and hate speech against conservatives. May God have mercy on their souls for their blasphemy! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 15:40, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== 'Liberalism' ==

I go along with much of what is said but here in Brit the word 'liberal' has a somewhat different connotation. We have here three mainstrwam political parties: Labour (or, as it likes to call itself nowaday, 'New Labour' - even more extremist than 'old' Labour!), Conservative (aka 'Tory'), and Liberals (aka 'LibDems'!). There are a handful of other parties e.g. the BNP or British National Party, UKIP, the UK Independence Party, and there are a number of locality-based parties. Of the mainstream parties, the Tories are generally considered to be the party of the right but this is not necessarily so.

Historically, the Liberal Party (formerly the Whigs), now incorporated into the LibDems, was the party of the right at which time the Tories were considered to be 'middle of the road'!

Our biggest media presentation problem here is the BBC, which whilst repetedly saying they are 'independent' has in fact a disgusting 'liberal' agenda all of its own. And we have to cough up a hefty licence fee for watching television which goes into BBC coffers - even though we may not ever watch BBC! In fact, according to a strict interpretation of the law, we are strictly liable to pay this even if we ''never'' watch any TV but have a computer monitor! {{unsigned|Celtish}} 13:09, 14 September 2007

*Yes, Celtish! The true mark of Socialism, it is. You are invited to improve our article on the [[BBC]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:31, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 21:38, 14 September 2007 (EDT) Done [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 14:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

BBC is not a for profit entity, is it? unlike most of the so-called "mainstream" media in the US. Neither is BBC like the American Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which subsists on Jim & Tammy Faye Baker style beg-a-thons and the public purse. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Rob, the BBC is more like PBS, than not, however. Both controlled by appointed boards, made by the Government, and funded, in whole or in part, by it. In the UK, unlike the U.S., they are forced to pay a tax to maintain the BBC, which, like I said, is more socialistic then what we have. Not better by much, however. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:05, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Although the BBC is technically not-for-profit it does have an enormous worldwide revenue from the resale of programmes and repeat fees, from the sale of CDs, videos, DVDs, and a wide range of books and magazines. It is in fact a major publisher in its own right. [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 21:38, 14 September 2007 (EDT)