<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Mpauline</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Mpauline"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Mpauline"/>
	<updated>2026-09-23T16:19:07Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753604</id>
		<title>Talk:Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753604"/>
		<updated>2010-02-11T22:12:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Merge with [[Science of global warming]]? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
good idea&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::''&amp;quot;the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality&amp;quot;'' 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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::And what's your point?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::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', &amp;quot;We all gotta die sometime.&amp;quot; Bot capture guy says what? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, please note that the IPCC is usually criticized for /understating/ global warming, but it's predictions are still &amp;quot;There is GW, humans activity is the cause.&amp;quot; The more nuanced questions of &amp;quot;by how much...&amp;quot; &amp;quot;by what specific behavior...&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:20, 29 September 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Media claims ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, I shall bring this issue here rather than risk reverting an admin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quotation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The grammar and punctuation in the quotation from Obama in the article could be improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Generally ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ecological movement generally has been described as a white attempt to stop non-whites'&lt;br /&gt;
industrialising, a middle-class attempt to stop working-class whites' industrialising,&lt;br /&gt;
an attempt to conjure up salaries for millions of scientists or an emotional&lt;br /&gt;
substitute for failed socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Not only liberals ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, took away the quotation marks from &amp;quot;consesus&amp;quot;, otherwise it looks stupid.~~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hackers evidence scam ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html ''Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam''] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==list of New York Times articles dating back to 1855 addressing the global warming and cooling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here or on the controversy page?[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:47, 21 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Good question, but not an urgent one. We need to start separating the [[science]] of global warming from the [[politics]]. The &amp;quot;[[greenhouse effect]]&amp;quot; is real, but the threat of a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is overhyped, and [[politicized science]] has contaminated the educational process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We need to give our series of [[global warming]]-related articles an overhaul. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 22 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science related sections should be placed first... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, while I understand that many global warming supporters have a liberal inclination, doesn't this seem a bit biased: &amp;quot;'''Liberal''' claims of consensus&amp;quot;?[[User:JPope|JPope]] 13:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;claim of consensus&amp;quot; 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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:21, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick==&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intro==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of the world by changing the ability of heat to escape the atmosphere. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We need to distinguish between:&lt;br /&gt;
#a period of [[global warming period|rising world air temperatures]]&lt;br /&gt;
#a scientific theory about [[global warming theory|what causes the above]]&lt;br /&gt;
#what activists mean when they say things like, &amp;quot;Global warming is real&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first is easy enough. It happens when air temperatures go up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Issues of independent review==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:... leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire problem with the last 10 or 20 years of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; advocacy is that contrary views have been suppressed (see [[intelligent design]] and &amp;quot;[[Expelled]]&amp;quot;). An abuse of the [[peer review]] system has undermined [[independent review]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Might have to lock the article again==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone added a clearly incorrect &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;, with attribution to a &amp;quot;History Encyclopedia&amp;quot; which turned out to be Wikipedia in disguise:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. [http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 07:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Hey, Ed....What do you think of moving this to Global Warming Conspiracy?  Just an idea, in the interest of accuracy. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, TK, we will always need an article on [[global warming]], because it is &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; - 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;[[advocacy journalists]]&amp;quot; the job is ten times as hard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:03, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Splitting the article between complementary &amp;quot;Climate Change&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy&amp;quot; articles (Or Man-caused? Anthropogenic is just too long) might help. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:08, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There are only two things going on here:&lt;br /&gt;
::#Scientific theories about what makes the earth's atmosphere get warmer and colder&lt;br /&gt;
::#Attempts to promote treaties and taxes, based on these theories&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::We don't need a lot of different articles. &amp;quot;[[Global warming]]&amp;quot; should be the main science article - split into sub-articles for ease of writing; &amp;quot;[[Global warming controversy]]&amp;quot; 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. &amp;amp; conservatives along with a few brave independent scientists who oppose the [[AGW]] because it's contradicted by the facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Warmest year or decade==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Various claims have been made that this or that recent year is the &amp;quot;warmest&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anyway, this article would probably be a good place to rebut all these claims. Who wants to help? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:17, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; could be less than accurate. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::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, &amp;quot;You cut, I chose?&amp;quot; for reaching compromise?  Well, first you have to cut, ie, show us your proposed edit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:07, 11 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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? --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:52, 11 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OK, TK, I respect that, and many other Conservatives believe that. But that is not what all Conservatives believe. &lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753603</id>
		<title>Talk:Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753603"/>
		<updated>2010-02-11T22:12:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Merge with [[Science of global warming]]? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
good idea&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::''&amp;quot;the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality&amp;quot;'' 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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::And what's your point?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::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', &amp;quot;We all gotta die sometime.&amp;quot; Bot capture guy says what? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, please note that the IPCC is usually criticized for /understating/ global warming, but it's predictions are still &amp;quot;There is GW, humans activity is the cause.&amp;quot; The more nuanced questions of &amp;quot;by how much...&amp;quot; &amp;quot;by what specific behavior...&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:20, 29 September 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Media claims ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, I shall bring this issue here rather than risk reverting an admin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quotation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The grammar and punctuation in the quotation from Obama in the article could be improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Generally ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ecological movement generally has been described as a white attempt to stop non-whites'&lt;br /&gt;
industrialising, a middle-class attempt to stop working-class whites' industrialising,&lt;br /&gt;
an attempt to conjure up salaries for millions of scientists or an emotional&lt;br /&gt;
substitute for failed socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Not only liberals ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, took away the quotation marks from &amp;quot;consesus&amp;quot;, otherwise it looks stupid.~~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hackers evidence scam ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html ''Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam''] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==list of New York Times articles dating back to 1855 addressing the global warming and cooling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here or on the controversy page?[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:47, 21 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Good question, but not an urgent one. We need to start separating the [[science]] of global warming from the [[politics]]. The &amp;quot;[[greenhouse effect]]&amp;quot; is real, but the threat of a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is overhyped, and [[politicized science]] has contaminated the educational process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We need to give our series of [[global warming]]-related articles an overhaul. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 22 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science related sections should be placed first... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, while I understand that many global warming supporters have a liberal inclination, doesn't this seem a bit biased: &amp;quot;'''Liberal''' claims of consensus&amp;quot;?[[User:JPope|JPope]] 13:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;claim of consensus&amp;quot; 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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:21, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick==&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intro==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of the world by changing the ability of heat to escape the atmosphere. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We need to distinguish between:&lt;br /&gt;
#a period of [[global warming period|rising world air temperatures]]&lt;br /&gt;
#a scientific theory about [[global warming theory|what causes the above]]&lt;br /&gt;
#what activists mean when they say things like, &amp;quot;Global warming is real&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first is easy enough. It happens when air temperatures go up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Issues of independent review==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:... leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire problem with the last 10 or 20 years of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; advocacy is that contrary views have been suppressed (see [[intelligent design]] and &amp;quot;[[Expelled]]&amp;quot;). An abuse of the [[peer review]] system has undermined [[independent review]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Might have to lock the article again==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone added a clearly incorrect &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;, with attribution to a &amp;quot;History Encyclopedia&amp;quot; which turned out to be Wikipedia in disguise:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. [http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 07:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Hey, Ed....What do you think of moving this to Global Warming Conspiracy?  Just an idea, in the interest of accuracy. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, TK, we will always need an article on [[global warming]], because it is &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; - 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;[[advocacy journalists]]&amp;quot; the job is ten times as hard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:03, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Splitting the article between complementary &amp;quot;Climate Change&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy&amp;quot; articles (Or Man-caused? Anthropogenic is just too long) might help. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:08, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There are only two things going on here:&lt;br /&gt;
::#Scientific theories about what makes the earth's atmosphere get warmer and colder&lt;br /&gt;
::#Attempts to promote treaties and taxes, based on these theories&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::We don't need a lot of different articles. &amp;quot;[[Global warming]]&amp;quot; should be the main science article - split into sub-articles for ease of writing; &amp;quot;[[Global warming controversy]]&amp;quot; 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. &amp;amp; conservatives along with a few brave independent scientists who oppose the [[AGW]] because it's contradicted by the facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Warmest year or decade==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Various claims have been made that this or that recent year is the &amp;quot;warmest&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anyway, this article would probably be a good place to rebut all these claims. Who wants to help? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:17, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; could be less than accurate. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::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, &amp;quot;You cut, I chose?&amp;quot; for reaching compromise?  Well, first you have to cut, ie, show us your proposed edit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:07, 11 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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? --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:52, 11 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OK, TK, I respect that, and many other Conservatives believe that. But that is not what all Conservatives believe. &lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
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?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753547</id>
		<title>Talk:Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753547"/>
		<updated>2010-02-11T20:31:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Conservatives also believe in Global Warming */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Merge with [[Science of global warming]]? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
good idea&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::''&amp;quot;the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality&amp;quot;'' 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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::And what's your point?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::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', &amp;quot;We all gotta die sometime.&amp;quot; Bot capture guy says what? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, please note that the IPCC is usually criticized for /understating/ global warming, but it's predictions are still &amp;quot;There is GW, humans activity is the cause.&amp;quot; The more nuanced questions of &amp;quot;by how much...&amp;quot; &amp;quot;by what specific behavior...&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:20, 29 September 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Media claims ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, I shall bring this issue here rather than risk reverting an admin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quotation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The grammar and punctuation in the quotation from Obama in the article could be improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Generally ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ecological movement generally has been described as a white attempt to stop non-whites'&lt;br /&gt;
industrialising, a middle-class attempt to stop working-class whites' industrialising,&lt;br /&gt;
an attempt to conjure up salaries for millions of scientists or an emotional&lt;br /&gt;
substitute for failed socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Not only liberals ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, took away the quotation marks from &amp;quot;consesus&amp;quot;, otherwise it looks stupid.~~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hackers evidence scam ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html ''Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam''] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==list of New York Times articles dating back to 1855 addressing the global warming and cooling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here or on the controversy page?[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:47, 21 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Good question, but not an urgent one. We need to start separating the [[science]] of global warming from the [[politics]]. The &amp;quot;[[greenhouse effect]]&amp;quot; is real, but the threat of a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is overhyped, and [[politicized science]] has contaminated the educational process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We need to give our series of [[global warming]]-related articles an overhaul. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 22 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science related sections should be placed first... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, while I understand that many global warming supporters have a liberal inclination, doesn't this seem a bit biased: &amp;quot;'''Liberal''' claims of consensus&amp;quot;?[[User:JPope|JPope]] 13:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;claim of consensus&amp;quot; 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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:21, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick==&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intro==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of the world by changing the ability of heat to escape the atmosphere. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We need to distinguish between:&lt;br /&gt;
#a period of [[global warming period|rising world air temperatures]]&lt;br /&gt;
#a scientific theory about [[global warming theory|what causes the above]]&lt;br /&gt;
#what activists mean when they say things like, &amp;quot;Global warming is real&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first is easy enough. It happens when air temperatures go up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Issues of independent review==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:... leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire problem with the last 10 or 20 years of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; advocacy is that contrary views have been suppressed (see [[intelligent design]] and &amp;quot;[[Expelled]]&amp;quot;). An abuse of the [[peer review]] system has undermined [[independent review]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Might have to lock the article again==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone added a clearly incorrect &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;, with attribution to a &amp;quot;History Encyclopedia&amp;quot; which turned out to be Wikipedia in disguise:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. [http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 07:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Hey, Ed....What do you think of moving this to Global Warming Conspiracy?  Just an idea, in the interest of accuracy. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, TK, we will always need an article on [[global warming]], because it is &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; - 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;[[advocacy journalists]]&amp;quot; the job is ten times as hard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:03, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Splitting the article between complementary &amp;quot;Climate Change&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy&amp;quot; articles (Or Man-caused? Anthropogenic is just too long) might help. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:08, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There are only two things going on here:&lt;br /&gt;
::#Scientific theories about what makes the earth's atmosphere get warmer and colder&lt;br /&gt;
::#Attempts to promote treaties and taxes, based on these theories&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::We don't need a lot of different articles. &amp;quot;[[Global warming]]&amp;quot; should be the main science article - split into sub-articles for ease of writing; &amp;quot;[[Global warming controversy]]&amp;quot; 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. &amp;amp; conservatives along with a few brave independent scientists who oppose the [[AGW]] because it's contradicted by the facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Warmest year or decade==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Various claims have been made that this or that recent year is the &amp;quot;warmest&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anyway, this article would probably be a good place to rebut all these claims. Who wants to help? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:17, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; 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 &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; could be less than accurate. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::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, &amp;quot;You cut, I chose?&amp;quot; for reaching compromise?  Well, first you have to cut, ie, show us your proposed edit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:07, 11 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753535</id>
		<title>Talk:Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753535"/>
		<updated>2010-02-11T19:59:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Conservatives also believe in Global Warming */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Merge with [[Science of global warming]]? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
good idea&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::''&amp;quot;the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality&amp;quot;'' 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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::And what's your point?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::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', &amp;quot;We all gotta die sometime.&amp;quot; Bot capture guy says what? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, please note that the IPCC is usually criticized for /understating/ global warming, but it's predictions are still &amp;quot;There is GW, humans activity is the cause.&amp;quot; The more nuanced questions of &amp;quot;by how much...&amp;quot; &amp;quot;by what specific behavior...&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:20, 29 September 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Media claims ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, I shall bring this issue here rather than risk reverting an admin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quotation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The grammar and punctuation in the quotation from Obama in the article could be improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Generally ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ecological movement generally has been described as a white attempt to stop non-whites'&lt;br /&gt;
industrialising, a middle-class attempt to stop working-class whites' industrialising,&lt;br /&gt;
an attempt to conjure up salaries for millions of scientists or an emotional&lt;br /&gt;
substitute for failed socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Not only liberals ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, took away the quotation marks from &amp;quot;consesus&amp;quot;, otherwise it looks stupid.~~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hackers evidence scam ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html ''Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam''] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==list of New York Times articles dating back to 1855 addressing the global warming and cooling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here or on the controversy page?[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:47, 21 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Good question, but not an urgent one. We need to start separating the [[science]] of global warming from the [[politics]]. The &amp;quot;[[greenhouse effect]]&amp;quot; is real, but the threat of a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is overhyped, and [[politicized science]] has contaminated the educational process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We need to give our series of [[global warming]]-related articles an overhaul. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 22 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science related sections should be placed first... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, while I understand that many global warming supporters have a liberal inclination, doesn't this seem a bit biased: &amp;quot;'''Liberal''' claims of consensus&amp;quot;?[[User:JPope|JPope]] 13:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;claim of consensus&amp;quot; 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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:21, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick==&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intro==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of the world by changing the ability of heat to escape the atmosphere. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We need to distinguish between:&lt;br /&gt;
#a period of [[global warming period|rising world air temperatures]]&lt;br /&gt;
#a scientific theory about [[global warming theory|what causes the above]]&lt;br /&gt;
#what activists mean when they say things like, &amp;quot;Global warming is real&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first is easy enough. It happens when air temperatures go up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Issues of independent review==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:... leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire problem with the last 10 or 20 years of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; advocacy is that contrary views have been suppressed (see [[intelligent design]] and &amp;quot;[[Expelled]]&amp;quot;). An abuse of the [[peer review]] system has undermined [[independent review]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Might have to lock the article again==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone added a clearly incorrect &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;, with attribution to a &amp;quot;History Encyclopedia&amp;quot; which turned out to be Wikipedia in disguise:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. [http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 07:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Hey, Ed....What do you think of moving this to Global Warming Conspiracy?  Just an idea, in the interest of accuracy. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, TK, we will always need an article on [[global warming]], because it is &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; - 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;[[advocacy journalists]]&amp;quot; the job is ten times as hard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:03, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Splitting the article between complementary &amp;quot;Climate Change&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy&amp;quot; articles (Or Man-caused? Anthropogenic is just too long) might help. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:08, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There are only two things going on here:&lt;br /&gt;
::#Scientific theories about what makes the earth's atmosphere get warmer and colder&lt;br /&gt;
::#Attempts to promote treaties and taxes, based on these theories&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::We don't need a lot of different articles. &amp;quot;[[Global warming]]&amp;quot; should be the main science article - split into sub-articles for ease of writing; &amp;quot;[[Global warming controversy]]&amp;quot; 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. &amp;amp; conservatives along with a few brave independent scientists who oppose the [[AGW]] because it's contradicted by the facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Warmest year or decade==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Various claims have been made that this or that recent year is the &amp;quot;warmest&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anyway, this article would probably be a good place to rebut all these claims. Who wants to help? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:17, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753530</id>
		<title>Talk:Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753530"/>
		<updated>2010-02-11T19:32:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Conservatives also believe in Global Warming */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Merge with [[Science of global warming]]? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
good idea&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::''&amp;quot;the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality&amp;quot;'' 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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::And what's your point?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::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', &amp;quot;We all gotta die sometime.&amp;quot; Bot capture guy says what? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, please note that the IPCC is usually criticized for /understating/ global warming, but it's predictions are still &amp;quot;There is GW, humans activity is the cause.&amp;quot; The more nuanced questions of &amp;quot;by how much...&amp;quot; &amp;quot;by what specific behavior...&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:20, 29 September 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Media claims ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, I shall bring this issue here rather than risk reverting an admin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quotation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The grammar and punctuation in the quotation from Obama in the article could be improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Generally ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ecological movement generally has been described as a white attempt to stop non-whites'&lt;br /&gt;
industrialising, a middle-class attempt to stop working-class whites' industrialising,&lt;br /&gt;
an attempt to conjure up salaries for millions of scientists or an emotional&lt;br /&gt;
substitute for failed socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Not only liberals ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, took away the quotation marks from &amp;quot;consesus&amp;quot;, otherwise it looks stupid.~~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hackers evidence scam ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html ''Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam''] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==list of New York Times articles dating back to 1855 addressing the global warming and cooling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here or on the controversy page?[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:47, 21 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Good question, but not an urgent one. We need to start separating the [[science]] of global warming from the [[politics]]. The &amp;quot;[[greenhouse effect]]&amp;quot; is real, but the threat of a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is overhyped, and [[politicized science]] has contaminated the educational process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We need to give our series of [[global warming]]-related articles an overhaul. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 22 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science related sections should be placed first... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, while I understand that many global warming supporters have a liberal inclination, doesn't this seem a bit biased: &amp;quot;'''Liberal''' claims of consensus&amp;quot;?[[User:JPope|JPope]] 13:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;claim of consensus&amp;quot; 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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:21, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick==&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intro==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of the world by changing the ability of heat to escape the atmosphere. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We need to distinguish between:&lt;br /&gt;
#a period of [[global warming period|rising world air temperatures]]&lt;br /&gt;
#a scientific theory about [[global warming theory|what causes the above]]&lt;br /&gt;
#what activists mean when they say things like, &amp;quot;Global warming is real&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first is easy enough. It happens when air temperatures go up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Issues of independent review==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:... leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire problem with the last 10 or 20 years of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; advocacy is that contrary views have been suppressed (see [[intelligent design]] and &amp;quot;[[Expelled]]&amp;quot;). An abuse of the [[peer review]] system has undermined [[independent review]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Might have to lock the article again==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone added a clearly incorrect &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;, with attribution to a &amp;quot;History Encyclopedia&amp;quot; which turned out to be Wikipedia in disguise:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. [http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 07:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Hey, Ed....What do you think of moving this to Global Warming Conspiracy?  Just an idea, in the interest of accuracy. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, TK, we will always need an article on [[global warming]], because it is &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; - 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;[[advocacy journalists]]&amp;quot; the job is ten times as hard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:03, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Splitting the article between complementary &amp;quot;Climate Change&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy&amp;quot; articles (Or Man-caused? Anthropogenic is just too long) might help. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:08, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There are only two things going on here:&lt;br /&gt;
::#Scientific theories about what makes the earth's atmosphere get warmer and colder&lt;br /&gt;
::#Attempts to promote treaties and taxes, based on these theories&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::We don't need a lot of different articles. &amp;quot;[[Global warming]]&amp;quot; should be the main science article - split into sub-articles for ease of writing; &amp;quot;[[Global warming controversy]]&amp;quot; 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. &amp;amp; conservatives along with a few brave independent scientists who oppose the [[AGW]] because it's contradicted by the facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Warmest year or decade==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Various claims have been made that this or that recent year is the &amp;quot;warmest&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anyway, this article would probably be a good place to rebut all these claims. Who wants to help? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:17, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Mpauline&amp;diff=753529</id>
		<title>User talk:Mpauline</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Mpauline&amp;diff=753529"/>
		<updated>2010-02-11T19:31:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: Created page with 'Hi, I'm mpauline.'&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Hi, I'm mpauline.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753528</id>
		<title>Talk:Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753528"/>
		<updated>2010-02-11T19:30:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Conservatives also believe in Global Warming */~~~~&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Merge with [[Science of global warming]]? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
good idea&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::''&amp;quot;the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality&amp;quot;'' 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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::And what's your point?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::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', &amp;quot;We all gotta die sometime.&amp;quot; Bot capture guy says what? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, please note that the IPCC is usually criticized for /understating/ global warming, but it's predictions are still &amp;quot;There is GW, humans activity is the cause.&amp;quot; The more nuanced questions of &amp;quot;by how much...&amp;quot; &amp;quot;by what specific behavior...&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:20, 29 September 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Media claims ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, I shall bring this issue here rather than risk reverting an admin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quotation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The grammar and punctuation in the quotation from Obama in the article could be improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Generally ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ecological movement generally has been described as a white attempt to stop non-whites'&lt;br /&gt;
industrialising, a middle-class attempt to stop working-class whites' industrialising,&lt;br /&gt;
an attempt to conjure up salaries for millions of scientists or an emotional&lt;br /&gt;
substitute for failed socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Not only liberals ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, took away the quotation marks from &amp;quot;consesus&amp;quot;, otherwise it looks stupid.~~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hackers evidence scam ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html ''Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam''] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==list of New York Times articles dating back to 1855 addressing the global warming and cooling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here or on the controversy page?[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:47, 21 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Good question, but not an urgent one. We need to start separating the [[science]] of global warming from the [[politics]]. The &amp;quot;[[greenhouse effect]]&amp;quot; is real, but the threat of a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is overhyped, and [[politicized science]] has contaminated the educational process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We need to give our series of [[global warming]]-related articles an overhaul. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 22 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science related sections should be placed first... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, while I understand that many global warming supporters have a liberal inclination, doesn't this seem a bit biased: &amp;quot;'''Liberal''' claims of consensus&amp;quot;?[[User:JPope|JPope]] 13:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;claim of consensus&amp;quot; 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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:21, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick==&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intro==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of the world by changing the ability of heat to escape the atmosphere. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We need to distinguish between:&lt;br /&gt;
#a period of [[global warming period|rising world air temperatures]]&lt;br /&gt;
#a scientific theory about [[global warming theory|what causes the above]]&lt;br /&gt;
#what activists mean when they say things like, &amp;quot;Global warming is real&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first is easy enough. It happens when air temperatures go up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Issues of independent review==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:... leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire problem with the last 10 or 20 years of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; advocacy is that contrary views have been suppressed (see [[intelligent design]] and &amp;quot;[[Expelled]]&amp;quot;). An abuse of the [[peer review]] system has undermined [[independent review]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Might have to lock the article again==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone added a clearly incorrect &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;, with attribution to a &amp;quot;History Encyclopedia&amp;quot; which turned out to be Wikipedia in disguise:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. [http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 07:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Hey, Ed....What do you think of moving this to Global Warming Conspiracy?  Just an idea, in the interest of accuracy. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, TK, we will always need an article on [[global warming]], because it is &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; - 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;[[advocacy journalists]]&amp;quot; the job is ten times as hard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:03, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Splitting the article between complementary &amp;quot;Climate Change&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy&amp;quot; articles (Or Man-caused? Anthropogenic is just too long) might help. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:08, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There are only two things going on here:&lt;br /&gt;
::#Scientific theories about what makes the earth's atmosphere get warmer and colder&lt;br /&gt;
::#Attempts to promote treaties and taxes, based on these theories&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::We don't need a lot of different articles. &amp;quot;[[Global warming]]&amp;quot; should be the main science article - split into sub-articles for ease of writing; &amp;quot;[[Global warming controversy]]&amp;quot; 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. &amp;amp; conservatives along with a few brave independent scientists who oppose the [[AGW]] because it's contradicted by the facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Warmest year or decade==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Various claims have been made that this or that recent year is the &amp;quot;warmest&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anyway, this article would probably be a good place to rebut all these claims. Who wants to help? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:17, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.-mpauline&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753527</id>
		<title>Talk:Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Global_warming&amp;diff=753527"/>
		<updated>2010-02-11T19:23:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: my thoughts&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Merge with [[Science of global warming]]? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
good idea&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other planets ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::''&amp;quot;the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality&amp;quot;'' 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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::And what's your point?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::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', &amp;quot;We all gotta die sometime.&amp;quot; Bot capture guy says what? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, please note that the IPCC is usually criticized for /understating/ global warming, but it's predictions are still &amp;quot;There is GW, humans activity is the cause.&amp;quot; The more nuanced questions of &amp;quot;by how much...&amp;quot; &amp;quot;by what specific behavior...&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:20, 29 September 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Media claims ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, I shall bring this issue here rather than risk reverting an admin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
: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)&lt;br /&gt;
::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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Quotation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The grammar and punctuation in the quotation from Obama in the article could be improved.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Generally ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ecological movement generally has been described as a white attempt to stop non-whites'&lt;br /&gt;
industrialising, a middle-class attempt to stop working-class whites' industrialising,&lt;br /&gt;
an attempt to conjure up salaries for millions of scientists or an emotional&lt;br /&gt;
substitute for failed socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Not only liberals ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, took away the quotation marks from &amp;quot;consesus&amp;quot;, otherwise it looks stupid.~~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hackers evidence scam ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html ''Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam''] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==list of New York Times articles dating back to 1855 addressing the global warming and cooling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here or on the controversy page?[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:47, 21 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Good question, but not an urgent one. We need to start separating the [[science]] of global warming from the [[politics]]. The &amp;quot;[[greenhouse effect]]&amp;quot; is real, but the threat of a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is overhyped, and [[politicized science]] has contaminated the educational process.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We need to give our series of [[global warming]]-related articles an overhaul. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:55, 22 November 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Science related sections should be placed first... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, while I understand that many global warming supporters have a liberal inclination, doesn't this seem a bit biased: &amp;quot;'''Liberal''' claims of consensus&amp;quot;?[[User:JPope|JPope]] 13:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: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 &amp;quot;claim of consensus&amp;quot; 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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:21, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick==&lt;br /&gt;
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)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Intro==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of the world by changing the ability of heat to escape the atmosphere. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*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. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We need to distinguish between:&lt;br /&gt;
#a period of [[global warming period|rising world air temperatures]]&lt;br /&gt;
#a scientific theory about [[global warming theory|what causes the above]]&lt;br /&gt;
#what activists mean when they say things like, &amp;quot;Global warming is real&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first is easy enough. It happens when air temperatures go up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Issues of independent review==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cut from intro:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:... leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[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]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire problem with the last 10 or 20 years of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; advocacy is that contrary views have been suppressed (see [[intelligent design]] and &amp;quot;[[Expelled]]&amp;quot;). An abuse of the [[peer review]] system has undermined [[independent review]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Might have to lock the article again==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Someone added a clearly incorrect &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot;, with attribution to a &amp;quot;History Encyclopedia&amp;quot; which turned out to be Wikipedia in disguise:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. [http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 07:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Hey, Ed....What do you think of moving this to Global Warming Conspiracy?  Just an idea, in the interest of accuracy. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, TK, we will always need an article on [[global warming]], because it is &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; - 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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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 &amp;quot;[[advocacy journalists]]&amp;quot; the job is ten times as hard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:03, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Splitting the article between complementary &amp;quot;Climate Change&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy&amp;quot; articles (Or Man-caused? Anthropogenic is just too long) might help. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:08, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There are only two things going on here:&lt;br /&gt;
::#Scientific theories about what makes the earth's atmosphere get warmer and colder&lt;br /&gt;
::#Attempts to promote treaties and taxes, based on these theories&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::We don't need a lot of different articles. &amp;quot;[[Global warming]]&amp;quot; should be the main science article - split into sub-articles for ease of writing; &amp;quot;[[Global warming controversy]]&amp;quot; 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. &amp;amp; conservatives along with a few brave independent scientists who oppose the [[AGW]] because it's contradicted by the facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Warmest year or decade==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Various claims have been made that this or that recent year is the &amp;quot;warmest&amp;quot; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Anyway, this article would probably be a good place to rebut all these claims. Who wants to help? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:17, 6 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=751430</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=751430"/>
		<updated>2010-02-02T23:25:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Global warming''', scientifically speaking, is a worldwide increase in atmospheric temperature. Such increases have alternated with periods of global cooling throughout geological history in regular, natural cycles. Many political activists use the term '''&amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot;''' to refer the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing &amp;quot;[[greenhouse gases]]&amp;quot; is causing more temperature increase than all natural causes combined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2010 NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies conducted an analysis that showed that 2009 was the second warmest year on record, and the decade of January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade  on record. The analysis used measurements from over 1,000 weather stations, satellite measurements of sea surface temperatures, and antarctic research stations. It used more data from polar areas than the Hadley Centre analyses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Richard Lindzen, of MIT, believes that there is no global crisis despite dire warning by the UN's [[International Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC). Dr. Lindzen believes that predictions made by [[climate model]]s publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass, and the climate has shown a mild cooling over the last 15 years [http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In November 2009, emails were stolen that may have demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.''[[Citation Needed]]'' In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending ''Environmental Shakedown''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming, but their general lack of comparative credentials has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control. Global warming skeptics question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&amp;amp;refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html Pual Chesser, &lt;br /&gt;
''Be wary of climate policy development'', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Act. 25, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Prior to [[Climategate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global warming skeptics charge that on most college campuses criticism of it is silenced or censored, and provide evidence of scientists skeptical of AGW being repressed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=102031&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. In 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming &amp;quot;an issue we can no longer afford to ignore&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled &amp;quot;Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action&amp;quot;, which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man - made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market - based CO2 reductions such as a cap - and  - trade program.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christiansandclimate.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is  misleading and or exaggerated.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html ''Evangelicals Push Back Against Global Warming Doom'',  Dec. 04 2009, christianpost.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presence of CO2==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is a greenhouse gas - were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. However, recent research has shown that the average global temperature and carbon dioxide do have a relationship, but that the relationship is the other way around. Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to the increasing belief amongst the skeptical science community that global temperatures are causing carbion dioxide to increase in the atmosphere. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the evaporation of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As temperatures rise, ocean water evaporates, causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise. However, this discredits the idea that human contributions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are significant enough to affect global climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above mentioned cyclic effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, &amp;quot;[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated &amp;quot;Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled &amp;quot;National Security and the Threat of Climate Change&amp;quot;. They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security], Central Intelligence Agency, September 25, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate change as a religious cult==&lt;br /&gt;
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other  attempts  such as  Marxism, overpopulation, ''Silent Spring'', &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Don Feder, ''The Cult of Global Warming'', GrassTopsUSA.com  7/31/2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming [[Ice Age]] scare of the 70's,  Maurizio Morabito asked, “Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maurizio Morabito, ''The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ files'', The Spectator December 5 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mark Steyn writes in Macleans, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And while, &amp;quot;When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable&amp;quot;, among these devotees of [[Gaia]],  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the National Post’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series The Ascent of Man. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mark Steyn, ''Why climate change is hot hot hot'' Macleans, December 24, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Past speculation== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speculation and warnings of catastrophic climate change are not unprecedented.  In 2001 the ''Guardian'' noted that some 70s headlines shouted, &amp;quot;Brace yourself for another ice age&amp;quot;. In 1971 the journal ''Science'' reported that the subsequent cooling effect resulting from a possible eightfold increased from atmospheric aerosol concentrations, &amp;quot;if sustained over a period of several years - is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Reported by Alison George in ''Breaking the ice'', The Guardian, Thursday 28 June 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June, 1974, ''[[Time]]'' magazine published its front page article, ''Science: Another Ice Age?'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while a report by the [[CIA]] in the same year stated that, &amp;quot;The world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change”, noting such things as that the &amp;quot;world's snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;the Canadian area of [[Arctic]] Greenland suffered below normal temperatures for 19 consecutive months&amp;quot;, which was unique during the last 100 years.  A &amp;quot;major climatic shift&amp;quot; was speculated, which would threaten the &amp;quot;the stability of most nations.” It further warned that &amp;quot;Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate, the  northern regions, such as Canada&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;major areas in northern China will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow&amp;quot;, within the next 2500 years - or sooner.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ''A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems'', August 1974]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in 1974, Nigel Calder, former editor of ''New Scientist'' and atmospheric researcher wrote in his book ''The Weather Machine'', &amp;quot;One might argue that there is a virtual certainty of the next ice age starting some time in the next 2000 years. Then the odds are only about 20-to-1 against it beginning in the next 100 years.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1975 the liberal magazine ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported that &amp;quot;Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend,...but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.&amp;quot; These authorities were skeptical that political leaders would take any positive action to compensate for the [[climate change]], and they conceded that the more dramatic solutions, such as melting the arctic ice cap, might create worse problems than that which they were designed to solve.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming and dissent==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mark Steyn writes in &amp;quot;Why climate change is hot hot hot&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
What’s also changed since the seventies is the nature of the UN and the transnational bureaucracies...“Aid” is a discredited word these days and comes with too many strings attached. But eco-credits sluiced through an oil-for-food program on steroids offers splendid new opportunities for bulking up an ambitious dictator’s Swiss bank accounts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/2/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox News (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reported effects of Climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Global cooling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Decreased food production.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Fred Pearce, ''Climate change warning over food production,'' Newscientist.com, April 26, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased food production.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html] William Booth, ''Global Heating Could Benefit U.S. Farmers; Prices Seen Rising As Production Falls'' The Washington Post, May 17, 1990&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Killer cornflakes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lisa Bricknell, Central Queensland University, at 10th World Congress on Environmental Health in Brisbane, AU. May 13,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking forests.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print David Adam, ''Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change''] March 11, 2009, guardian.co.uk&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased tree foliage.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;'Global Warming May Spur Increased Growth In Pacific Northwest'' Oct. 20, 2009, Forests Science Daily&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Melting glaciers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt,''&lt;br /&gt;
June 6, 2007, The Hindustan Times&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Growing glaciers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Colder winters &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Climate change could bring colder winters,'' March 13, 2003, Canadian Broadcasting Centre&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A new ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research/print Bill McGuire, The Guardian, November 13, 2003]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Prevention of an ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html Andrea Thompson, ''Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age''], Monday, September 10, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Taller mountains.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ker Than, ''Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming, Too'', August 4, 2006, LiveScience&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A lop-sided planet.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Robert Roy Britt, June 29,2005 LiveScience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Stronger hurricanes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Global Warming: Warmer Seas Linked To Strengthening Hurricanes,'' Sep. 4, 2008, ScienceDaily&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weaker Hurricanes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer, ''Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity'', 04-17-2007, USA Today&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shorter days.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/11220/1066/ William Atkins, ''Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days''], ITWire, April 11, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Richard Fisher, ''Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes,'' September 23 2009 Newscientist.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Earth exploding&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nujournal.net/EarthquakeEnergyRise.pdf] Australian scientist Dr Tom Chalko, June 17,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking brains.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gordon G. Gallup Jr., Human Nature (Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2007U)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking sheep.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Steve Connor, Science Editor, ''How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep,''&lt;br /&gt;
Independent.co.uk, 3 July 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Tiger Attacks.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks'', Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shark attacks.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.junkscience.com/news3/shark.htmlBruce Johnston, ''Shark attack on boat result of global warming''] Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  Walrus stampede deaths.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts ''Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths'', Associated Press - December 14, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Imminent cannibalism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The death of the the Loch Ness Monster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/global_warming_45.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Black Hawk Down]], when 18 members of a U.S. military team were killed in a helicopter crash in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=32291&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Daniel Tarantola, University of NSW, Australia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html?view=print ''Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa,''] Stanford Report, November 23, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Child ''climate cops''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=70811&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Increase in depression.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Emily Sohn Thurs., Discovery Channel, Dec . 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increase in psychiatric illness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;World Health Organisation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'' 04-08, 2008, Sify.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alan Jones, The Scotsman, February 22, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey_Stick_Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&amp;amp;M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy &amp;amp; Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also== &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=751429</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=751429"/>
		<updated>2010-02-02T23:24:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Global warming''', scientifically speaking, is a worldwide increase in atmospheric temperature. Such increases have alternated with periods of global cooling throughout geological history in regular, natural cycles. Many political activists use the term '''&amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot;''' to refer the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing &amp;quot;[[greenhouse gases]]&amp;quot; is causing more temperature increase than all natural causes combined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2010 NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies conducted an analysis that showed that 2009 was the second warmest year on record, and the decade of January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade  on record. The analysis used measurements from over 1,000 weather stations, satellite measurements of sea surface temperatures, and antarctic research stations. It used more data from polar areas than the Hadley Centre analyses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Richard Lindzen, of MIT, believes that there is no global crisis despite dire warning by the UN's [[International Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC). Dr. Lindzen believes that predictions made by [[climate model]]s publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass, and the climate has shown a mild cooling over the last 15 years [http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In November 2009, emails were stolen that may have demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.''{Citation Needed}'' In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending ''Environmental Shakedown''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming, but their general lack of comparative credentials has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control. Global warming skeptics question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&amp;amp;refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html Pual Chesser, &lt;br /&gt;
''Be wary of climate policy development'', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Act. 25, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Prior to [[Climategate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global warming skeptics charge that on most college campuses criticism of it is silenced or censored, and provide evidence of scientists skeptical of AGW being repressed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=102031&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. In 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming &amp;quot;an issue we can no longer afford to ignore&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled &amp;quot;Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action&amp;quot;, which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man - made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market - based CO2 reductions such as a cap - and  - trade program.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christiansandclimate.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is  misleading and or exaggerated.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html ''Evangelicals Push Back Against Global Warming Doom'',  Dec. 04 2009, christianpost.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presence of CO2==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is a greenhouse gas - were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. However, recent research has shown that the average global temperature and carbon dioxide do have a relationship, but that the relationship is the other way around. Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to the increasing belief amongst the skeptical science community that global temperatures are causing carbion dioxide to increase in the atmosphere. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the evaporation of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As temperatures rise, ocean water evaporates, causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise. However, this discredits the idea that human contributions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are significant enough to affect global climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above mentioned cyclic effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, &amp;quot;[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated &amp;quot;Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled &amp;quot;National Security and the Threat of Climate Change&amp;quot;. They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security], Central Intelligence Agency, September 25, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate change as a religious cult==&lt;br /&gt;
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other  attempts  such as  Marxism, overpopulation, ''Silent Spring'', &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Don Feder, ''The Cult of Global Warming'', GrassTopsUSA.com  7/31/2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming [[Ice Age]] scare of the 70's,  Maurizio Morabito asked, “Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maurizio Morabito, ''The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ files'', The Spectator December 5 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mark Steyn writes in Macleans, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And while, &amp;quot;When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable&amp;quot;, among these devotees of [[Gaia]],  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the National Post’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series The Ascent of Man. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mark Steyn, ''Why climate change is hot hot hot'' Macleans, December 24, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Past speculation== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speculation and warnings of catastrophic climate change are not unprecedented.  In 2001 the ''Guardian'' noted that some 70s headlines shouted, &amp;quot;Brace yourself for another ice age&amp;quot;. In 1971 the journal ''Science'' reported that the subsequent cooling effect resulting from a possible eightfold increased from atmospheric aerosol concentrations, &amp;quot;if sustained over a period of several years - is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Reported by Alison George in ''Breaking the ice'', The Guardian, Thursday 28 June 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June, 1974, ''[[Time]]'' magazine published its front page article, ''Science: Another Ice Age?'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while a report by the [[CIA]] in the same year stated that, &amp;quot;The world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change”, noting such things as that the &amp;quot;world's snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;the Canadian area of [[Arctic]] Greenland suffered below normal temperatures for 19 consecutive months&amp;quot;, which was unique during the last 100 years.  A &amp;quot;major climatic shift&amp;quot; was speculated, which would threaten the &amp;quot;the stability of most nations.” It further warned that &amp;quot;Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate, the  northern regions, such as Canada&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;major areas in northern China will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow&amp;quot;, within the next 2500 years - or sooner.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ''A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems'', August 1974]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in 1974, Nigel Calder, former editor of ''New Scientist'' and atmospheric researcher wrote in his book ''The Weather Machine'', &amp;quot;One might argue that there is a virtual certainty of the next ice age starting some time in the next 2000 years. Then the odds are only about 20-to-1 against it beginning in the next 100 years.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1975 the liberal magazine ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported that &amp;quot;Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend,...but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.&amp;quot; These authorities were skeptical that political leaders would take any positive action to compensate for the [[climate change]], and they conceded that the more dramatic solutions, such as melting the arctic ice cap, might create worse problems than that which they were designed to solve.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming and dissent==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mark Steyn writes in &amp;quot;Why climate change is hot hot hot&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
What’s also changed since the seventies is the nature of the UN and the transnational bureaucracies...“Aid” is a discredited word these days and comes with too many strings attached. But eco-credits sluiced through an oil-for-food program on steroids offers splendid new opportunities for bulking up an ambitious dictator’s Swiss bank accounts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/2/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox News (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reported effects of Climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Global cooling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Decreased food production.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Fred Pearce, ''Climate change warning over food production,'' Newscientist.com, April 26, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased food production.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html] William Booth, ''Global Heating Could Benefit U.S. Farmers; Prices Seen Rising As Production Falls'' The Washington Post, May 17, 1990&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Killer cornflakes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lisa Bricknell, Central Queensland University, at 10th World Congress on Environmental Health in Brisbane, AU. May 13,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking forests.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print David Adam, ''Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change''] March 11, 2009, guardian.co.uk&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased tree foliage.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;'Global Warming May Spur Increased Growth In Pacific Northwest'' Oct. 20, 2009, Forests Science Daily&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Melting glaciers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt,''&lt;br /&gt;
June 6, 2007, The Hindustan Times&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Growing glaciers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Colder winters &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Climate change could bring colder winters,'' March 13, 2003, Canadian Broadcasting Centre&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A new ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research/print Bill McGuire, The Guardian, November 13, 2003]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Prevention of an ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html Andrea Thompson, ''Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age''], Monday, September 10, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Taller mountains.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ker Than, ''Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming, Too'', August 4, 2006, LiveScience&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A lop-sided planet.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Robert Roy Britt, June 29,2005 LiveScience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Stronger hurricanes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Global Warming: Warmer Seas Linked To Strengthening Hurricanes,'' Sep. 4, 2008, ScienceDaily&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weaker Hurricanes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer, ''Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity'', 04-17-2007, USA Today&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shorter days.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/11220/1066/ William Atkins, ''Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days''], ITWire, April 11, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Richard Fisher, ''Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes,'' September 23 2009 Newscientist.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Earth exploding&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nujournal.net/EarthquakeEnergyRise.pdf] Australian scientist Dr Tom Chalko, June 17,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking brains.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gordon G. Gallup Jr., Human Nature (Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2007U)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking sheep.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Steve Connor, Science Editor, ''How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep,''&lt;br /&gt;
Independent.co.uk, 3 July 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Tiger Attacks.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks'', Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shark attacks.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.junkscience.com/news3/shark.htmlBruce Johnston, ''Shark attack on boat result of global warming''] Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  Walrus stampede deaths.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts ''Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths'', Associated Press - December 14, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Imminent cannibalism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The death of the the Loch Ness Monster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/global_warming_45.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Black Hawk Down]], when 18 members of a U.S. military team were killed in a helicopter crash in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=32291&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Daniel Tarantola, University of NSW, Australia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html?view=print ''Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa,''] Stanford Report, November 23, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Child ''climate cops''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=70811&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Increase in depression.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Emily Sohn Thurs., Discovery Channel, Dec . 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increase in psychiatric illness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;World Health Organisation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'' 04-08, 2008, Sify.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alan Jones, The Scotsman, February 22, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey_Stick_Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&amp;amp;M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy &amp;amp; Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also== &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=751428</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=751428"/>
		<updated>2010-02-02T23:23:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Global warming''', scientifically speaking, is a worldwide increase in atmospheric temperature. Such increases have alternated with periods of global cooling throughout geological history in regular, natural cycles. Many political activists use the term '''&amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot;''' to refer the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing &amp;quot;[[greenhouse gases]]&amp;quot; is causing more temperature increase than all natural causes combined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2010 NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies conducted an analysis that showed that 2009 was the second warmest year on record, and the decade of January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade  on record. The analysis used measurements from over 1,000 weather stations, satellite measurements of sea surface temperatures, and antarctic research stations. It used more data from polar areas than the Hadley Centre analyses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Richard Lindzen, of MIT, believes that there is no global crisis despite dire warning by the UN's [[International Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC). Dr. Lindzen believes that predictions made by [[climate model]]s publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass, and the climate has shown a mild cooling over the last 15 years [http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In November 2009, emails were stolen that may have demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Citation Needed&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending ''Environmental Shakedown''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming, but their general lack of comparative credentials has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control. Global warming skeptics question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&amp;amp;refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html Pual Chesser, &lt;br /&gt;
''Be wary of climate policy development'', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Act. 25, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Prior to [[Climategate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global warming skeptics charge that on most college campuses criticism of it is silenced or censored, and provide evidence of scientists skeptical of AGW being repressed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=102031&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. In 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming &amp;quot;an issue we can no longer afford to ignore&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled &amp;quot;Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action&amp;quot;, which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man - made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market - based CO2 reductions such as a cap - and  - trade program.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christiansandclimate.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is  misleading and or exaggerated.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html ''Evangelicals Push Back Against Global Warming Doom'',  Dec. 04 2009, christianpost.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presence of CO2==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is a greenhouse gas - were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. However, recent research has shown that the average global temperature and carbon dioxide do have a relationship, but that the relationship is the other way around. Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to the increasing belief amongst the skeptical science community that global temperatures are causing carbion dioxide to increase in the atmosphere. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the evaporation of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As temperatures rise, ocean water evaporates, causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise. However, this discredits the idea that human contributions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are significant enough to affect global climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above mentioned cyclic effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, &amp;quot;[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated &amp;quot;Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled &amp;quot;National Security and the Threat of Climate Change&amp;quot;. They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security], Central Intelligence Agency, September 25, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate change as a religious cult==&lt;br /&gt;
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other  attempts  such as  Marxism, overpopulation, ''Silent Spring'', &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Don Feder, ''The Cult of Global Warming'', GrassTopsUSA.com  7/31/2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming [[Ice Age]] scare of the 70's,  Maurizio Morabito asked, “Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maurizio Morabito, ''The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ files'', The Spectator December 5 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mark Steyn writes in Macleans, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And while, &amp;quot;When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable&amp;quot;, among these devotees of [[Gaia]],  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the National Post’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series The Ascent of Man. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mark Steyn, ''Why climate change is hot hot hot'' Macleans, December 24, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Past speculation== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speculation and warnings of catastrophic climate change are not unprecedented.  In 2001 the ''Guardian'' noted that some 70s headlines shouted, &amp;quot;Brace yourself for another ice age&amp;quot;. In 1971 the journal ''Science'' reported that the subsequent cooling effect resulting from a possible eightfold increased from atmospheric aerosol concentrations, &amp;quot;if sustained over a period of several years - is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Reported by Alison George in ''Breaking the ice'', The Guardian, Thursday 28 June 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June, 1974, ''[[Time]]'' magazine published its front page article, ''Science: Another Ice Age?'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while a report by the [[CIA]] in the same year stated that, &amp;quot;The world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change”, noting such things as that the &amp;quot;world's snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;the Canadian area of [[Arctic]] Greenland suffered below normal temperatures for 19 consecutive months&amp;quot;, which was unique during the last 100 years.  A &amp;quot;major climatic shift&amp;quot; was speculated, which would threaten the &amp;quot;the stability of most nations.” It further warned that &amp;quot;Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate, the  northern regions, such as Canada&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;major areas in northern China will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow&amp;quot;, within the next 2500 years - or sooner.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ''A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems'', August 1974]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in 1974, Nigel Calder, former editor of ''New Scientist'' and atmospheric researcher wrote in his book ''The Weather Machine'', &amp;quot;One might argue that there is a virtual certainty of the next ice age starting some time in the next 2000 years. Then the odds are only about 20-to-1 against it beginning in the next 100 years.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1975 the liberal magazine ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported that &amp;quot;Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend,...but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.&amp;quot; These authorities were skeptical that political leaders would take any positive action to compensate for the [[climate change]], and they conceded that the more dramatic solutions, such as melting the arctic ice cap, might create worse problems than that which they were designed to solve.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming and dissent==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mark Steyn writes in &amp;quot;Why climate change is hot hot hot&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
What’s also changed since the seventies is the nature of the UN and the transnational bureaucracies...“Aid” is a discredited word these days and comes with too many strings attached. But eco-credits sluiced through an oil-for-food program on steroids offers splendid new opportunities for bulking up an ambitious dictator’s Swiss bank accounts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/2/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox News (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reported effects of Climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Global cooling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Decreased food production.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Fred Pearce, ''Climate change warning over food production,'' Newscientist.com, April 26, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased food production.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html] William Booth, ''Global Heating Could Benefit U.S. Farmers; Prices Seen Rising As Production Falls'' The Washington Post, May 17, 1990&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Killer cornflakes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lisa Bricknell, Central Queensland University, at 10th World Congress on Environmental Health in Brisbane, AU. May 13,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking forests.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print David Adam, ''Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change''] March 11, 2009, guardian.co.uk&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased tree foliage.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;'Global Warming May Spur Increased Growth In Pacific Northwest'' Oct. 20, 2009, Forests Science Daily&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Melting glaciers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt,''&lt;br /&gt;
June 6, 2007, The Hindustan Times&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Growing glaciers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Colder winters &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Climate change could bring colder winters,'' March 13, 2003, Canadian Broadcasting Centre&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A new ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research/print Bill McGuire, The Guardian, November 13, 2003]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Prevention of an ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html Andrea Thompson, ''Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age''], Monday, September 10, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Taller mountains.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ker Than, ''Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming, Too'', August 4, 2006, LiveScience&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A lop-sided planet.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Robert Roy Britt, June 29,2005 LiveScience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Stronger hurricanes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Global Warming: Warmer Seas Linked To Strengthening Hurricanes,'' Sep. 4, 2008, ScienceDaily&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weaker Hurricanes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer, ''Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity'', 04-17-2007, USA Today&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shorter days.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/11220/1066/ William Atkins, ''Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days''], ITWire, April 11, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Richard Fisher, ''Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes,'' September 23 2009 Newscientist.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Earth exploding&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nujournal.net/EarthquakeEnergyRise.pdf] Australian scientist Dr Tom Chalko, June 17,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking brains.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gordon G. Gallup Jr., Human Nature (Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2007U)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking sheep.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Steve Connor, Science Editor, ''How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep,''&lt;br /&gt;
Independent.co.uk, 3 July 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Tiger Attacks.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks'', Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shark attacks.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.junkscience.com/news3/shark.htmlBruce Johnston, ''Shark attack on boat result of global warming''] Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  Walrus stampede deaths.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts ''Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths'', Associated Press - December 14, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Imminent cannibalism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The death of the the Loch Ness Monster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/global_warming_45.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Black Hawk Down]], when 18 members of a U.S. military team were killed in a helicopter crash in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=32291&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Daniel Tarantola, University of NSW, Australia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html?view=print ''Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa,''] Stanford Report, November 23, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Child ''climate cops''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=70811&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Increase in depression.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Emily Sohn Thurs., Discovery Channel, Dec . 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increase in psychiatric illness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;World Health Organisation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'' 04-08, 2008, Sify.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alan Jones, The Scotsman, February 22, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey_Stick_Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&amp;amp;M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy &amp;amp; Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also== &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=751427</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=751427"/>
		<updated>2010-02-02T23:16:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Global warming''', scientifically speaking, is a worldwide increase in atmospheric temperature. Such increases have alternated with periods of global cooling throughout geological history in regular, natural cycles. Many political activists use the term '''&amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot;''' to refer the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing &amp;quot;[[greenhouse gases]]&amp;quot; is causing more temperature increase than all natural causes combined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2010 NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies conducted an analysis that showed that 2009 was the second warmest year on record, and the decade of January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade  on record. The analysis used measurements from over 1,000 weather stations, satellite measurements of sea surface temperatures, and antarctic research stations. It used more data from polar areas than the Hadley Centre analyses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Richard Lindzen, of MIT, believes that there is no global crisis despite dire warning by the UN's [[International Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC). Dr. Lindzen believes that predictions made by [[climate model]]s publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass, and the climate has shown a mild cooling over the last 15 years [http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In November 2009, emails were stolen that may have demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy. In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending ''Environmental Shakedown''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming, but their general lack of comparative credentials has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control. Global warming skeptics question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&amp;amp;refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html Pual Chesser, &lt;br /&gt;
''Be wary of climate policy development'', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Act. 25, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Prior to [[Climategate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global warming skeptics charge that on most college campuses criticism of it is silenced or censored, and provide evidence of scientists skeptical of AGW being repressed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=102031&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. In 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming &amp;quot;an issue we can no longer afford to ignore&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled &amp;quot;Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action&amp;quot;, which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man - made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market - based CO2 reductions such as a cap - and  - trade program.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christiansandclimate.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is  misleading and or exaggerated.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html ''Evangelicals Push Back Against Global Warming Doom'',  Dec. 04 2009, christianpost.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presence of CO2==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is a greenhouse gas - were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. However, recent research has shown that the average global temperature and carbon dioxide do have a relationship, but that the relationship is the other way around. Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to the increasing belief amongst the skeptical science community that global temperatures are causing carbion dioxide to increase in the atmosphere. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the evaporation of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As temperatures rise, ocean water evaporates, causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise. However, this discredits the idea that human contributions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are significant enough to affect global climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above mentioned cyclic effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, &amp;quot;[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated &amp;quot;Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled &amp;quot;National Security and the Threat of Climate Change&amp;quot;. They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security], Central Intelligence Agency, September 25, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate change as a religious cult==&lt;br /&gt;
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other  attempts  such as  Marxism, overpopulation, ''Silent Spring'', &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Don Feder, ''The Cult of Global Warming'', GrassTopsUSA.com  7/31/2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming [[Ice Age]] scare of the 70's,  Maurizio Morabito asked, “Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maurizio Morabito, ''The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ files'', The Spectator December 5 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mark Steyn writes in Macleans, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And while, &amp;quot;When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable&amp;quot;, among these devotees of [[Gaia]],  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the National Post’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series The Ascent of Man. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mark Steyn, ''Why climate change is hot hot hot'' Macleans, December 24, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Past speculation== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speculation and warnings of catastrophic climate change are not unprecedented.  In 2001 the ''Guardian'' noted that some 70s headlines shouted, &amp;quot;Brace yourself for another ice age&amp;quot;. In 1971 the journal ''Science'' reported that the subsequent cooling effect resulting from a possible eightfold increased from atmospheric aerosol concentrations, &amp;quot;if sustained over a period of several years - is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Reported by Alison George in ''Breaking the ice'', The Guardian, Thursday 28 June 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June, 1974, ''[[Time]]'' magazine published its front page article, ''Science: Another Ice Age?'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while a report by the [[CIA]] in the same year stated that, &amp;quot;The world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change”, noting such things as that the &amp;quot;world's snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;the Canadian area of [[Arctic]] Greenland suffered below normal temperatures for 19 consecutive months&amp;quot;, which was unique during the last 100 years.  A &amp;quot;major climatic shift&amp;quot; was speculated, which would threaten the &amp;quot;the stability of most nations.” It further warned that &amp;quot;Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate, the  northern regions, such as Canada&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;major areas in northern China will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow&amp;quot;, within the next 2500 years - or sooner.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ''A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems'', August 1974]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in 1974, Nigel Calder, former editor of ''New Scientist'' and atmospheric researcher wrote in his book ''The Weather Machine'', &amp;quot;One might argue that there is a virtual certainty of the next ice age starting some time in the next 2000 years. Then the odds are only about 20-to-1 against it beginning in the next 100 years.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1975 the liberal magazine ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported that &amp;quot;Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend,...but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.&amp;quot; These authorities were skeptical that political leaders would take any positive action to compensate for the [[climate change]], and they conceded that the more dramatic solutions, such as melting the arctic ice cap, might create worse problems than that which they were designed to solve.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming and dissent==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mark Steyn writes in &amp;quot;Why climate change is hot hot hot&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
What’s also changed since the seventies is the nature of the UN and the transnational bureaucracies...“Aid” is a discredited word these days and comes with too many strings attached. But eco-credits sluiced through an oil-for-food program on steroids offers splendid new opportunities for bulking up an ambitious dictator’s Swiss bank accounts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/2/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox News (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reported effects of Climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Global cooling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Decreased food production.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Fred Pearce, ''Climate change warning over food production,'' Newscientist.com, April 26, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased food production.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html] William Booth, ''Global Heating Could Benefit U.S. Farmers; Prices Seen Rising As Production Falls'' The Washington Post, May 17, 1990&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Killer cornflakes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lisa Bricknell, Central Queensland University, at 10th World Congress on Environmental Health in Brisbane, AU. May 13,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking forests.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print David Adam, ''Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change''] March 11, 2009, guardian.co.uk&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased tree foliage.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;'Global Warming May Spur Increased Growth In Pacific Northwest'' Oct. 20, 2009, Forests Science Daily&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Melting glaciers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt,''&lt;br /&gt;
June 6, 2007, The Hindustan Times&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Growing glaciers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Colder winters &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Climate change could bring colder winters,'' March 13, 2003, Canadian Broadcasting Centre&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A new ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research/print Bill McGuire, The Guardian, November 13, 2003]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Prevention of an ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html Andrea Thompson, ''Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age''], Monday, September 10, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Taller mountains.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ker Than, ''Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming, Too'', August 4, 2006, LiveScience&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A lop-sided planet.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Robert Roy Britt, June 29,2005 LiveScience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Stronger hurricanes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Global Warming: Warmer Seas Linked To Strengthening Hurricanes,'' Sep. 4, 2008, ScienceDaily&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weaker Hurricanes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer, ''Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity'', 04-17-2007, USA Today&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shorter days.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/11220/1066/ William Atkins, ''Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days''], ITWire, April 11, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Richard Fisher, ''Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes,'' September 23 2009 Newscientist.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Earth exploding&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nujournal.net/EarthquakeEnergyRise.pdf] Australian scientist Dr Tom Chalko, June 17,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking brains.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gordon G. Gallup Jr., Human Nature (Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2007U)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking sheep.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Steve Connor, Science Editor, ''How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep,''&lt;br /&gt;
Independent.co.uk, 3 July 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Tiger Attacks.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks'', Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shark attacks.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.junkscience.com/news3/shark.htmlBruce Johnston, ''Shark attack on boat result of global warming''] Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  Walrus stampede deaths.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts ''Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths'', Associated Press - December 14, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Imminent cannibalism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The death of the the Loch Ness Monster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/global_warming_45.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Black Hawk Down]], when 18 members of a U.S. military team were killed in a helicopter crash in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=32291&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Daniel Tarantola, University of NSW, Australia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html?view=print ''Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa,''] Stanford Report, November 23, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Child ''climate cops''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=70811&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Increase in depression.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Emily Sohn Thurs., Discovery Channel, Dec . 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increase in psychiatric illness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;World Health Organisation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'' 04-08, 2008, Sify.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alan Jones, The Scotsman, February 22, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey_Stick_Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&amp;amp;M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy &amp;amp; Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also== &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=751426</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=751426"/>
		<updated>2010-02-02T23:14:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Global warming''', scientifically speaking, is a worldwide increase in atmospheric temperature. Such increases have alternated with periods of global cooling throughout geological history in regular, natural cycles. Many political activists use the term '''&amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot;''' to refer the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing &amp;quot;[[greenhouse gases]]&amp;quot; is causing more temperature increase than all natural causes combined.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2010 NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies conducted an analysis that showed that 2009 was the second warmest year on record, and the decade of January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade  on record. The analysis used measurements from over 1,000 weather stations, satellite measurements of sea surface temperatures, and antarctic research stations. It used more data from polar areas than the Hadley Centre analyses.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Richard Lindzen, of MIT, believes that there is no global crisis despite dire warning by the UN's [[International Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC). Dr. Lindzen believes that predictions made by [[climate model]]s publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass, and the climate has shown a mild cooling over the last 15 years [http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In November 2009, emails were stolen that may have demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy. In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending ''Environmental Shakedown''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming, but their general lack of comparative credentials has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control. Global warming skeptics question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&amp;amp;refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html Pual Chesser, &lt;br /&gt;
''Be wary of climate policy development'', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Act. 25, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Prior to [[Climategate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global warming skeptics charge that on most college campuses criticism of it is silenced or censored, and provide evidence of scientists skeptical of AGW being repressed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=102031&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. In 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming &amp;quot;an issue we can no longer afford to ignore&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled &amp;quot;Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action&amp;quot;, which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man - made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market - based CO2 reductions such as a cap - and  - trade program.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christiansandclimate.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is  misleading and or exaggerated.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html ''Evangelicals Push Back Against Global Warming Doom'',  Dec. 04 2009, christianpost.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presence of CO2==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is a greenhouse gas - were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. However, recent research has shown that the average global temperature and carbon dioxide do have a relationship, but that the relationship is the other way around. Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to the increasing belief amongst the skeptical science community that global temperatures are causing carbion dioxide to increase in the atmosphere. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the evaporation of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As temperatures rise, ocean water evaporates, causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise. However, this discredits the idea that human contributions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are significant enough to affect global climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above mentioned cyclic effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, &amp;quot;[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated &amp;quot;Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled &amp;quot;National Security and the Threat of Climate Change&amp;quot;. They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security], Central Intelligence Agency, September 25, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate change as a religious cult==&lt;br /&gt;
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other  attempts  such as  Marxism, overpopulation, ''Silent Spring'', &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Don Feder, ''The Cult of Global Warming'', GrassTopsUSA.com  7/31/2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming [[Ice Age]] scare of the 70's,  Maurizio Morabito asked, “Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Maurizio Morabito, ''The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ files'', The Spectator December 5 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mark Steyn writes in Macleans, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And while, &amp;quot;When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable&amp;quot;, among these devotees of [[Gaia]],  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the National Post’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series The Ascent of Man. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mark Steyn, ''Why climate change is hot hot hot'' Macleans, December 24, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Past speculation== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Speculation and warnings of catastrophic climate change are not unprecedented.  In 2001 the ''Guardian'' noted that some 70s headlines shouted, &amp;quot;Brace yourself for another ice age&amp;quot;. In 1971 the journal ''Science'' reported that the subsequent cooling effect resulting from a possible eightfold increased from atmospheric aerosol concentrations, &amp;quot;if sustained over a period of several years - is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Reported by Alison George in ''Breaking the ice'', The Guardian, Thursday 28 June 2001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June, 1974, ''[[Time]]'' magazine published its front page article, ''Science: Another Ice Age?'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; while a report by the [[CIA]] in the same year stated that, &amp;quot;The world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change”, noting such things as that the &amp;quot;world's snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;the Canadian area of [[Arctic]] Greenland suffered below normal temperatures for 19 consecutive months&amp;quot;, which was unique during the last 100 years.  A &amp;quot;major climatic shift&amp;quot; was speculated, which would threaten the &amp;quot;the stability of most nations.” It further warned that &amp;quot;Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate, the  northern regions, such as Canada&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;major areas in northern China will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow&amp;quot;, within the next 2500 years - or sooner.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ''A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems'', August 1974]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in 1974, Nigel Calder, former editor of ''New Scientist'' and atmospheric researcher wrote in his book ''The Weather Machine'', &amp;quot;One might argue that there is a virtual certainty of the next ice age starting some time in the next 2000 years. Then the odds are only about 20-to-1 against it beginning in the next 100 years.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1975 the liberal magazine ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported that &amp;quot;Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend,...but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.&amp;quot; These authorities were skeptical that political leaders would take any positive action to compensate for the [[climate change]], and they conceded that the more dramatic solutions, such as melting the arctic ice cap, might create worse problems than that which they were designed to solve.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming and dissent==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mark Steyn writes in &amp;quot;Why climate change is hot hot hot&amp;quot;,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
What’s also changed since the seventies is the nature of the UN and the transnational bureaucracies...“Aid” is a discredited word these days and comes with too many strings attached. But eco-credits sluiced through an oil-for-food program on steroids offers splendid new opportunities for bulking up an ambitious dictator’s Swiss bank accounts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/2/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox News (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reported effects of Climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Global cooling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Decreased food production.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Fred Pearce, ''Climate change warning over food production,'' Newscientist.com, April 26, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased food production.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html] William Booth, ''Global Heating Could Benefit U.S. Farmers; Prices Seen Rising As Production Falls'' The Washington Post, May 17, 1990&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Killer cornflakes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lisa Bricknell, Central Queensland University, at 10th World Congress on Environmental Health in Brisbane, AU. May 13,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking forests.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print David Adam, ''Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change''] March 11, 2009, guardian.co.uk&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased tree foliage.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;'Global Warming May Spur Increased Growth In Pacific Northwest'' Oct. 20, 2009, Forests Science Daily&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Melting glaciers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt,''&lt;br /&gt;
June 6, 2007, The Hindustan Times&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Growing glaciers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Colder winters &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Climate change could bring colder winters,'' March 13, 2003, Canadian Broadcasting Centre&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A new ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research/print Bill McGuire, The Guardian, November 13, 2003]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Prevention of an ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html Andrea Thompson, ''Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age''], Monday, September 10, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Taller mountains.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ker Than, ''Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming, Too'', August 4, 2006, LiveScience&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A lop-sided planet.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Robert Roy Britt, June 29,2005 LiveScience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Stronger hurricanes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Global Warming: Warmer Seas Linked To Strengthening Hurricanes,'' Sep. 4, 2008, ScienceDaily&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weaker Hurricanes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer, ''Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity'', 04-17-2007, USA Today&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shorter days.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/11220/1066/ William Atkins, ''Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days''], ITWire, April 11, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Richard Fisher, ''Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes,'' September 23 2009 Newscientist.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Earth exploding&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nujournal.net/EarthquakeEnergyRise.pdf] Australian scientist Dr Tom Chalko, June 17,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking brains.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gordon G. Gallup Jr., Human Nature (Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2007U)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking sheep.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Steve Connor, Science Editor, ''How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep,''&lt;br /&gt;
Independent.co.uk, 3 July 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Tiger Attacks.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks'', Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shark attacks.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.junkscience.com/news3/shark.htmlBruce Johnston, ''Shark attack on boat result of global warming''] Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  Walrus stampede deaths.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts ''Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths'', Associated Press - December 14, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Imminent cannibalism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The death of the the Loch Ness Monster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/global_warming_45.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Black Hawk Down]], when 18 members of a U.S. military team were killed in a helicopter crash in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=32291&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Daniel Tarantola, University of NSW, Australia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html?view=print ''Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa,''] Stanford Report, November 23, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Child ''climate cops''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=70811&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Increase in depression.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Emily Sohn Thurs., Discovery Channel, Dec . 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increase in psychiatric illness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;World Health Organisation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'' 04-08, 2008, Sify.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alan Jones, The Scotsman, February 22, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey_Stick_Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&amp;amp;M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy &amp;amp; Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also== &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=734742</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=734742"/>
		<updated>2009-12-18T19:39:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Politicization of the issue */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Global warming''' theory asserts that changing gas content in 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
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. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; 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. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In November 2009, emails were stolen that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming, leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy. In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending ''Environmental Shakedown''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming, but their general lack of comparative credentials has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control. Global warming skeptics question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&amp;amp;refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html Pual Chesser, &lt;br /&gt;
''Be wary of climate policy development'', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Act. 25, 2007]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Prior to [[Climategate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global warming skeptics charge that on most college campuses criticism of it is silenced or censored, and provide evidence of scientists skeptical of AGW being repressed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=102031&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. In 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming &amp;quot;an issue we can no longer afford to ignore&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled &amp;quot;Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action&amp;quot;, which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man - made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market - based CO2 reductions such as a cap - and  - trade program.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christiansandclimate.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is  misleading and or exaggerated.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html ''Evangelicals Push Back Against Global Warming Doom'',  Dec. 04 2009, christianpost.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presence of CO2==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is a greenhouse gas - were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. However, recent research has shown that the average global temperature and carbon dioxide do have a relationship, but that the relationship is the other way around. Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to the increasing belief amongst the skeptical science community that global temperatures are causing carbion dioxide to increase in the atmosphere. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the evaporation of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; As temperatures rise, ocean water evaporates, causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise. However, this discredits the idea that human contributions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are significant enough to affect global climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above mentioned cyclic effect.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, &amp;quot;[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated &amp;quot;Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled &amp;quot;National Security and the Threat of Climate Change&amp;quot;. They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security], Central Intelligence Agency, September 25, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate change as a religious cult==&lt;br /&gt;
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other  attempts  such as  Marxism, overpopulation, ''Silent Spring'', &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Don Feder, ''The Cult of Global Warming'', GrassTopsUSA.com  7/31/2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reported effects of Climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Global cooling.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Decreased food production.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Fred Pearce, ''Climate change warning over food production,'' Newscientist.com, April 26, 2005&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased food production.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html] William Booth, ''Global Heating Could Benefit U.S. Farmers; Prices Seen Rising As Production Falls'' The Washington Post, May 17, 1990&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Killer cornflakes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lisa Bricknell, Central Queensland University, at 10th World Congress on Environmental Health in Brisbane, AU. May 13,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking forests.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print David Adam, ''Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change''] March 11, 2009, guardian.co.uk&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased tree foliage.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;'Global Warming May Spur Increased Growth In Pacific Northwest'' Oct. 20, 2009, Forests Science Daily&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Melting glaciers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt,''&lt;br /&gt;
June 6, 2007, The Hindustan Times&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Growing glaciers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Colder winters &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Climate change could bring colder winters,'' March 13, 2003, Canadian Broadcasting Centre&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A new ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research/print Bill McGuire, The Guardian, November 13, 2003]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Prevention of an ice age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html Andrea Thompson, ''Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age''], Monday, September 10, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Taller mountains.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ker Than, ''Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming, Too'', August 4, 2006, LiveScience&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A lop-sided planet.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Robert Roy Britt, June 29,2005 LiveScience.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Stronger hurricanes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Global Warming: Warmer Seas Linked To Strengthening Hurricanes,'' Sep. 4, 2008, ScienceDaily&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Weaker Hurricanes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer, ''Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity'', 04-17-2007, USA Today&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shorter days.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/11220/1066/ William Atkins, ''Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days''], ITWire, April 11, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Richard Fisher, ''Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes,'' September 23 2009 Newscientist.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Earth exploding&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nujournal.net/EarthquakeEnergyRise.pdf] Australian scientist Dr Tom Chalko, June 17,2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking brains.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gordon G. Gallup Jr., Human Nature (Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2007U)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shrinking sheep.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Steve Connor, Science Editor, ''How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep,''&lt;br /&gt;
Independent.co.uk, 3 July 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Tiger Attacks.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks'', Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Shark attacks.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.junkscience.com/news3/shark.htmlBruce Johnston, ''Shark attack on boat result of global warming''] Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  Walrus stampede deaths.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts ''Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths'', Associated Press - December 14, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Imminent cannibalism.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The death of the the Loch Ness Monster.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/global_warming_45.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Black Hawk Down]], when 18 members of a U.S. military team were killed in a helicopter crash in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=32291&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* A strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Daniel Tarantola, University of NSW, Australia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html?view=print ''Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa,''] Stanford Report, November 23, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Child ''climate cops''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=70811&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Increase in depression.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Emily Sohn Thurs., Discovery Channel, Dec . 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increase in psychiatric illness.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;World Health Organisation&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'' 04-08, 2008, Sify.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Alan Jones, The Scotsman, February 22, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey_Stick_Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&amp;amp;M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy &amp;amp; Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also== &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=729382</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=729382"/>
		<updated>2009-12-11T17:35:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Politicization of the issue */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their baised liberal agenda, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control. Prior to [[Climategate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. In 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming &amp;quot;an issue we can no longer afford to ignore&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled &amp;quot;Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action&amp;quot;, which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man - made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market - based CO2 reductions such as a cap - and  - trade program.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christiansandclimate.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, &amp;quot;[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated &amp;quot;Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled &amp;quot;National Security and the Threat of Climate Change&amp;quot;. They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]&lt;br /&gt;
===Controversy===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850. The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=729337</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=729337"/>
		<updated>2009-12-11T16:35:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their baised liberal agenda, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control. Prior to [[Climategate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. In 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming &amp;quot;an issue we can no longer afford to ignore&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled &amp;quot;Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action&amp;quot;, which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man - made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market - based CO2 reductions such as a cap - and  - trade program.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christiansandclimate.org/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, &amp;quot;[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated &amp;quot;Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]&lt;br /&gt;
===Controversy===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850. The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=729020</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=729020"/>
		<updated>2009-12-10T22:31:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Politicization of the issue */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their baised liberal agenda, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control. Prior to [[Climategate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. In 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming &amp;quot;an issue we can no longer afford to ignore&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, &amp;quot;[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated &amp;quot;Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]&lt;br /&gt;
===Controversy===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850. The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=729004</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=729004"/>
		<updated>2009-12-10T22:16:13Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Politicization of the issue */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their baised liberal agenda, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control. Prior to [[Climategate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. In 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming &amp;quot;an issue we can no longer afford to ignore&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are also Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who believe that global warming is a critical problem, and that Conservatism and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking of those who are skeptical of global warming, he has written &amp;quot;there is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated &amp;quot;Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[An Inconvenient Truth|Inconvenient Lie]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
===Controversy===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850. The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728988</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728988"/>
		<updated>2009-12-10T21:56:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Politicization of the issue */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their baised liberal agenda, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control. Prior to [[Climategate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. In 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming &amp;quot;an issue we can no longer afford to ignore&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are also Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who believe that global warming is a critical problem, and that Conservatism and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking of those who are skeptical of global warming, he has written &amp;quot;there is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[An Inconvenient Truth|Inconvenient Lie]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
===Controversy===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850. The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Politics_of_global_warming&amp;diff=728892</id>
		<title>Politics of global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Politics_of_global_warming&amp;diff=728892"/>
		<updated>2009-12-10T18:31:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* US Politics */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''politics of global warming''' are dominated by two groups. The first group consists of those who advocate drastic action to prevent [[global warming]], generally on the grounds that the [[Modern Warming]] period is headed for ecological catastrophe, and consists of [[liberals]], politicized scientists and [[environmentalists]]. The second group consists of scientists without a political agenda, and [[conservatives]] who believe that global warming is not preventable, and say that science shows these are cyclical occurrences for [[Earth]], well beyond man's ability to control or prevent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The [[global warming]] agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create [[global governance]] [http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2145]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==US Politics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Registered voters are evenly divided on the issue, with 75% of [[Democrats]] and 23% of [[Republicans]] believing the science supports AGW theory. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the issue came to the fore in 1989, neither president&amp;amp;mdash;[[Bill Clinton]] or [[George W. Bush]]&amp;amp;mdash;has sent the [[Kyoto Protocol]] treaty to the Senate for ratification. A bipartisan Senate resolution disapproved the notion of joining the treaty 93-0.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some sources date the flip-flop from [[global cooling]] hype to [[global warming]] hysteria to 1989, when the [[Berlin Wall]] fell. With the [[Cold War]] won by the forces of democracy and freedom, supporters of totalitarian socialism had to find a new issue. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The global warming circus was in full swing.  Meetings were going on nonstop. One of the more striking of those meetings was hosted in the summer of 1989 by Robert Redford at his ranch in Sundance, Utah.  Redford proclaimed that it was time to stop the research and begin acting.  I suppose that that was a reasonable suggestion for an actor to make, but it was also indicative of the overall attitude towards science.  Barbara Streisand personally undertook to support the research of Michael Oppenheimer at the Environmental Defense Fund, although he is primarily an advocate and not a climatologist. Meryl Streep made an appeal on public television to stop warming.  A bill was even prepared to guarantee Americans a stable climate.&amp;quot; [http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I_2.html] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==EU Politics==&lt;br /&gt;
All 27 member states of the [[European Union]] have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, as has the EU itself. In 2000 the European Climate Change Programme was launched to provide a strategy to implement Kyoto: the targets assigned for each member state vary, with western states cutting emissions more than eastern ones &amp;amp;ndash; to make an average cut of 8% by 2012, 20% to 30% by 2020 and 50% by 2050.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/01_energy_policy_for_europe_en.pdf An Energy Policy for Europe&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Some member states have agreed to further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions; [[Germany]] had already cut emissions by 17.2% in 2004, so is pressing for tougher targets in future, and the [[United Kingdom]] parliament has proposed a Climate Change Bill to cut GHGs by 60% by 2050 (several parties including the [[Liberal Democrats]] have pushed for 80% reduction targets).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6444145.stm 'Binding' carbon targets proposed&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; All vehicles produced in the EU from 2012 will have to emit less than 120 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre (equivalent to at least 47 miles per gallon for diesel, 55 mpg for petrol): the most stringent law in the world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ec.europa.eu/environment/news/efe/24/article_4119_en.htm European strategy targets car emissions&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==International Politics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ([[IPCC]]) has issued a series of reports endorsing the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]]. Supporters of this theory call the IPCC assessments authoritative, and use this as the basis to justify ratification of the global warming treaty (see [[Kyoto Protocol]]).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Loss of objectivity among scientists==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Hans von Storch]] and [[Nico Stehr]] wrote: &lt;br /&gt;
:In an article we published in the professional journal ''Science'' in October 2004, we were able to demonstrate that the underlying methodology that led to this [[hockey stick curve]] is flawed. Our intention was to turn back the spiral of exaggerations somewhat, but without calling the core statement into question, which is that human-induced climate change does exist. Prominent members of the climate research community did not respond to the article by engaging use in a dispute over the facts. Instead, they were concerned that the worthy cause of climate protection had been harmed. [http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Distortion of the Facts==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Supporters of Kyoto have famously asserted that temperatures in 1998-2007 are the highest in 1,000 years. However, peer-reviewed research published in scientific journals challenges this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2003, the &amp;quot;[[hockey stick graph]]&amp;quot; of [[Michael Mann]] was examined by McIntyre and McKitrick in ''Energy &amp;amp; Environment''. They found that:&lt;br /&gt;
:the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. [http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Contradictory Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On 7/2/08, an article reported that the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute says there will be “blistering” future heat waves because of the “drying-out effect of a warming world”. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080702/ap_on_sc/sci_extreme_heat]&lt;br /&gt;
The previous day, another article said the National Wildlife Federation claims “Midwest floods show impact of global warming&lt;br /&gt;
”. [http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0130458420080701]&lt;br /&gt;
“Drying” and “flooding” are mutually exclusive, but that doesn’t stop claims that “global warming” will cause both of them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html How Global Warming Research is Creating a Climate of Fear] - By Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:political Terms]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:climate change]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728875</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728875"/>
		<updated>2009-12-10T17:56:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control. Prior to [[Climategate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. In 2007 the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming &amp;quot;an issue we can no longer afford to ignore&amp;quot;. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[An Inconvenient Truth|Inconvenient Lie]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
===Controversy===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850. The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728868</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728868"/>
		<updated>2009-12-10T17:39:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control. Both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[An Inconvenient Truth|Inconvenient Lie]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
===Controversy===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850. The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728856</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728856"/>
		<updated>2009-12-10T17:19:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Politicization of the issue */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control.  On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.  While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[An Inconvenient Truth|Inconvenient Lie]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
===Controversy===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850. The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728824</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728824"/>
		<updated>2009-12-10T16:45:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Politicization of the issue */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control.  On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[An Inconvenient Truth|Inconvenient Lie]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
===Controversy===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850. The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728823</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728823"/>
		<updated>2009-12-10T16:44:40Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Politicization of the issue */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control.  On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA &amp;amp; NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Climate science fraud==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[An Inconvenient Truth|Inconvenient Lie]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
===Controversy===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850. The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728419</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728419"/>
		<updated>2009-12-09T20:28:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Politicization of the issue */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control.  On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government give out information that strongly supports global warming theories. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Controversy==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:* Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Climategate===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As details emerged from the [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]], liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. After being exposed, as cover, the [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data. [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests may have led to the data being leaked intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;They are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728417</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728417"/>
		<updated>2009-12-09T20:24:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Politicization of the issue */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control.  On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government give out information that strongly supports global warming theories. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Controversy==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:* Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Climategate===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As details emerged from the [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]], liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. After being exposed, as cover, the [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data. [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests may have led to the data being leaked intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;They are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728414</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728414"/>
		<updated>2009-12-09T20:23:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Politicization of the issue */ typo&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control.  On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agencies of the United States Government give out information that strongly supports global warming theories. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]&amp;lt;/ref]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Controversy==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:* Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Climategate===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As details emerged from the [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]], liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. After being exposed, as cover, the [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data. [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests may have led to the data being leaked intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;They are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728407</id>
		<title>Global warming</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&amp;diff=728407"/>
		<updated>2009-12-09T20:07:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Mpauline: /* Politicization of the issue */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Global warming''' theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. [[Liberal]] scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,570469,00.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, FoxNews, October 30, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The myth of dangerous man-made global warming is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy.  Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of this myth, but liberals have censored dissent and pretended that there is a &amp;quot;[[scientific consensus]]&amp;quot; supporting their theory for greater government control.  On most college campuses criticism of man-made global warming is silenced or censored, and even scientists skeptical of it are afraid to speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009).  Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world.  Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The science of global warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going back thousands of centuries into the past, variations in global air temperature are closely associated with corresponding changes in carbon dioxide levels. Scientists generally believe that temperature drives carbon dioxide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.&amp;quot; [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/283/5408/1712]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although some have called the data ambiguous.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ Davies and Company]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere lead to slight increases in atmospheric temperature, but the main factor is water in the form of [[water vapor]] and [[cloud cover]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politicization of the issue==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publically supported the global waming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed o reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bill Gray wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.&lt;br /&gt;
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Controversy==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Global Warming Controversy}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since 1989, advocates have clashed on the issue of whether human beings are more responsible than nature for  modern periods of global warming; see &amp;quot;[[greenhouse warming]]&amp;quot; and [[global warming theory]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Some people predicted &amp;quot;global warming,&amp;quot; which has come to mean extreme [[greenhouse warming]] of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences. [http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Most non-scientific support for the global warming theory rests on popular accounts such as Al Gore's ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]]'' or on reports issued by the UN's [[IPCC]]. However, Keston Green of Monash University and Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School wrote that:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the [[IPCC]] forecasts of climate change are not scientific. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Former vice-president [[Al Gore]] called it a [[moral issue]], while climate scientist [[Richard Lindzen]] says, &amp;quot;It is probably the most immoral thing you could do to restrain energy so that the billions in the earth who don’t have access to electricity won't conveniently get it.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/media/On line extra materials/Climate change - lindzen interview.doc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; However, it is to be noted that many proponents of the theory propose energy conservation only until 'green' energy generation becomes predominant.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::In the general, the term ''global warming'' can be used for any upward trend in the [[Global mean temperature record|global mean temperature]], but it is mostly used to refer to the 1° F warming since 1850.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The two sides are divided on whether this warming is a natural recovery from the [[Little Ice Age]] or a man-made environmental phenomenon. There are also debates regarding the potential positive or negative effects of a warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are evenly split on the issue. ''Boston Globe'' writer [[Ellen Goodman]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:* Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Controversy and scientific inaccuracies may have contributed to addressing 'Climate Change' in place of using Global Warming. As the northern pole region melts, the southern pole region ice is growing &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html], http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p14s01-sten.html, As arctic ice melts, South Pole ice grows, January 10, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away] News.com.au, April 18, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The argument is that for alarmists to claim a global threat, it would have to include the entire globe. For skeptics, the evidence is conclusive, there is no threat. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::A recent warming trend in 2009 is also seen by some as contradicting predictions of imminent global warming, and necessitating a change of terminology to ''Climate Change.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/Global-temperatures-have-plunged-74degF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is also pointed out that ''global cooling'' was seen as a threat by the mid-1970's.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (photocopy)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Climategate===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Climategate}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As details emerged from the [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]], liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. After being exposed, as cover, the [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data. [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests may have led to the data being leaked intentionally.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.junkscience.com/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, &amp;quot;They are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science.&amp;quot; Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Modern Warm Period==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, &amp;quot;Global warming is now 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.0&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past three decades and 0.8&amp;amp;nbsp;°C [1.4&amp;amp;nbsp;°F] in the past century.&amp;quot; http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''&amp;quot;Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sun Spots ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor,  acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Liberal claims of &amp;quot;Consensus&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into &amp;quot;consensus&amp;quot; support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the &amp;quot;science is settled&amp;quot; began in 1988 or 1989.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.petitionproject.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, &amp;quot;Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In fact, many scientists disagree with the &amp;quot;facts,&amp;quot; their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ad.jpg|center]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Variability of the Climate System==&lt;br /&gt;
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen.  Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered.  One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming.  Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars.  The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming.  The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977.  A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself.  The reasons for this are not understood.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming.  Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth.  There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another source notes,  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics of Global Warming==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main|Politics of global warming}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, &amp;quot;'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14167&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need to fight &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clearly, &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. &lt;br /&gt;
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6&amp;amp;nbsp;°F during the 20th Century. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')&lt;br /&gt;
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lindzen wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of &amp;quot;global warming&amp;quot; in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cato&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. &lt;br /&gt;
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no &amp;quot;Climate Crisis&amp;quot; and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer &amp;quot;The article has not undergone any scientific peer review&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions&amp;quot; In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ryan N. Maue: &lt;br /&gt;
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that  global warming might be greatly overblown. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide &amp;quot;has completely and utterly collapsed&amp;quot; during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Vincent Gray:&lt;br /&gt;
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and &amp;quot;there is no serious threat to the climate&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist &lt;br /&gt;
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data &amp;quot;show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. John S. Theon:&lt;br /&gt;
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister &lt;br /&gt;
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as &amp;quot;an insidious propaganda campaign&amp;quot; peddling &amp;quot;patent nonsense.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796  UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,”  “But you are being told lies.”&lt;br /&gt;
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”&lt;br /&gt;
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was &amp;quot;a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid&amp;quot;, and that  &amp;quot;We're out of time&amp;quot;, with Al Gore calling the situation &amp;quot;the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&amp;amp;show_article=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In response, Fox New (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as &amp;quot;irrational hysteria,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;horrifically bad&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;incredibly biased&amp;quot;, containing containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, &amp;quot;If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it&amp;quot;, and accused Borenstein of &amp;quot;writing a polemic and reporting it as fact.&amp;quot; Deming noted that &amp;quot;the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.&amp;quot; The AP responded to criticism by stating that, &amp;quot;It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, &amp;quot;There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says  &amp;quot;Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, &amp;quot;What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was &amp;quot;broadly accurate&amp;quot;, it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker;  ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken from the official transcript,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the nine errors the judge found were:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1. Sea  level  rise  of  up  to  20  feet  (7 metres) will  be  caused  by melting  of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and  over,  millennia,  so  that  the  Armageddon  scenario  he  predicts,  insofar  as  it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. Low  lying  inhabited  Pacific  atolls  are  being  inundated  because  of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states &amp;quot;that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand&amp;quot;. There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3. Shutting down of the &amp;quot;Ocean Conveyor&amp;quot;. According  to  the  IPCC,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Ocean  Conveyor (known  technically  as  the  Meridional  Overturning  Circulation  or  thermohaline circulation)  will  shut  down  in  the  future,  though  it  is  considered  likely  that thermohaline circulation may slow down. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows  two graphs relating  to a period of 650,000 years, one  showing  rise  in  CO2  and  one  showing  rise  in  temperature,  and  asserts  (by ridiculing  the  opposite  view)  that  they  show  an  exact  fit. Although  there  is  general scientific agreement  that  there  is a connection,  the  two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr  Gore  asserts  in  scene  7  that  the  disappearance  of  snow  on Mt  Kilimanjaro  is expressly  attributable  to  global  warming.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  is  a  point  that specifically  impressed Mr Milliband  (see  the  press  release  quoted  at  paragraph  6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad  is used  as  a prime  example of  a  catastrophic  result of global  warming.  However,  it  is  generally  accepted  that  the  evidence  remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely  to result from other factors, such as population  increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*7. Hurricane Katrina. In  scene  12  Hurricane  Katrina  and  the  consequent  devastation  in  New  Orleans  is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through  the water  looking  for  ice, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;A new scientific study shows  that for  the  first  time  they are  finding polar bears  that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.&amp;quot; The only scientific  study  that  either  side  before me  can  find  is  one which  indicates  that  four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: &amp;quot;Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and  other  factors  are  bleaching  and  they  end  up  like  this. All  the  fish  species  that depend on  the coral reef are also  in  jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss  is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.&amp;quot; The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade,  there would be  increased coral bleaching and widespread coral  mortality,  unless  corals  could  adopt  or  acclimatise,  but  that  separating  the impacts  of  climate  change-related  stresses  from  other  stresses,  such  as  over-fishing and polluting, is difficult. &lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes,  argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such  film  to  their pupils, then  this would inevitably result &amp;quot;in  the promotion of partisan political views  in  the  teaching of any  subject  in  the  school, which  is  thus not only not being forbidden  by  the  local  education  authority  (and  the  DES), but  being  positively facilitated by them.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*1.  The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*3.  Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and  environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Related to above, while Gore  claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;sun&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to his website,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more &amp;quot;aggressive approach&amp;quot; to global warming which he has declared as &amp;quot;undeniable and urgent.&amp;quot; He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the &amp;quot;real deal on the environment&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his own words, McCain says &amp;quot;the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over.&amp;quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] believes &amp;quot;that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind.&amp;quot; During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] &amp;quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He comments &amp;quot;Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Al Gore's &amp;quot;Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; Movie Claims==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie &amp;quot;An Inconvenient Truth&amp;quot; contains at least eleven material falsehoods &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those inaccuracies include the following&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was &amp;quot;not possible&amp;quot; to attribute one-off events to global warming.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.&lt;br /&gt;
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Scientists ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;35%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Roger Revelle]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Achim Steiner]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fred Singer]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Richard Lindzen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]&lt;br /&gt;
| valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot; width=&amp;quot;33%&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
* [[James E. Hansen]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Michael Mann]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charles Keeling]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Global Warming Controversy]] &lt;br /&gt;
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialism and global warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Politics of global warming]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Global Warming|Articles about '''Global Warming''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wikiproject:News by Subject#Global Warming| Wikiproject:News by Subject- Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy &amp;amp; Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Climategate scandal}}&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&amp;amp;q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&amp;amp;articleID=604 &amp;quot;Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?&amp;quot;, by Randall G. Holcombe].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&amp;amp;articleID=296 &amp;quot;After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage,&amp;quot; by Bruce Yandle].&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 &amp;quot;Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?&amp;quot;, by Richard Lindzen]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&amp;amp;id=5 &amp;quot;New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html &amp;quot;CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Environmentalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Mpauline</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>