Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2008-07-06T17:00:56Z

Orion Blastar: /* Weapons of Mass Destruction */

'''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' is the largest of several active fronts in the ongoing [[War on Terrorism]]. Other fronts include [[Afghanistan]], [[Philippines]], and the [[Horn of Africa]]. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 3 March 2003 with the removal of the [[Ba'athist]] regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] by a "Coalition of the Willing" led by the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>. An interim government, Constitutional Assembly, and later an elected Parliament and Executive have assumed authority, however sectarian insurgent violence has hindered stability and reconstruction efforts by US contractors and the new government. Iraq's new Constitution strictly limits the emergency powers of the Executive in dealing with civil strife--a post Saddam democratic reform.

President [[George W. Bush]] and Senator [[John McCain]] are among the strongest proponents of Operation Iraq Freedom, and support continuing it until a sustained Democracy is in place that can repel terrorism on its own.

==Background To Regime Change==

In the post-[[9/11]] analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide [[jihad]]ists, the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason.<ref>Chris Suellentrop, [http://slate.msn.com/id/1008414/ Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?], Slate, Oct. 9, 2001.</ref><ref>Norman Bauman, [http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/wtc.htm Why they hate us: "Stopping cancer treatments will not topple a dictatorship"], 14 October 2001.</ref><ref>Michael Rubin, [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm Sanctions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?], Middle East review of International Affairs, Volume 5, No. 4 - December 2001.</ref><ref>Matt Welch, [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?], Reason Magazine, March 2002.</ref><ref>Alan W. Dowd, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_33/ai_109580224 Thirteen Years of Causes and Consequences for the Was in Iraq], Parameters, Autumn, 2003.[http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_epy/pi_epy_02.html]</ref> After the Gulf War of 1991 the United States kept troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against an Iraqi invasion of the Kingdom. In the findings of the the 9/11 Commission Report for example, in a section entitled, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'', referring to Osama bin Laden's motivations for his Declaration of War and attack on the United States, the Commission found the following:
:He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.<ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'']</ref>

Saddam had taken advantage of corruption in both the [[United Nations]] Secretariat and [[Security Council]] to revive the Iraqi economy after the 1991 [[Gulf War]] through the [[Oil for Food]] program, nevertheless few of the intended beneficiaries of these alleged UN humanitarian efforts saw the intended relief. Meanwhile, Saddam kept intact the "intellectual capital" or "know-how" to revive [[weapons of mass destruction]] (WMD) programs which were credited with ensuring the survival of the Ba'athist regime in both the 1980-1988 War with Iran, and preventing a US overthrow of the regime in 1991. As the 90s progressed and the millennium changed, Saddam's top priority was ending the sanctions, and then a full resumption of operational WMD programs. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Regime Strategic Intent], Duelfer Report, 2004.</ref>
[[Image:Dynamicduo.JPG|right|thumb|300px|Sen. Hillary Clinton was a leading spokesperson in the bipartisan decision to commit troops to Iraq.]]
Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]], addressing a gathering of the radical anti-war group [[Code Pink]] spoke from her own knowledge and experience,
{{Cquote|'''There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. …For now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children.''' <ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref> }}

Eygptian President [[Hosni Mubarek]] and Libyan [[Socialist]] General Secretary [[Muammar Gaddafi]] in negotiations with [[Saddam Hussein]] relayed a message through Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] and Spanish President [[Jose Maria Aznar]] to UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] and US President [[George W. Bush]] that Saddam would be willing to avoid removal by force and voluntarily go into exile, provided Saddam was allowed to take $1 billion dollars and "all the information he wants about [[weapons of mass destruction]]." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/saddam_risked_his_life_for_wmd_1.asp Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets], ''WeeklyStandard.com. Spetember 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639 Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion], ''Editor & Publisher'', September 26, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion], He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms, By Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz, ''[[Washington Post]], September 27, 2007; Page A17.</ref><ref>[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref> For 12 years, the international community gave Saddam chance after chance, Saddam defied it all including WMD declarations. Dozens of [[UN]] resolutions and mandated sanctions failed to persuade Saddam's grip on power. In 1998, the course for present day Iraq began in earnest. President Clinton signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act. This act declares that it should be the policy of the [[United States]] to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

==Arguments For Regime Change==

The concern which has led to this front on the War on Terror was summarized by Raymond S. Kraft in his "Historical Review of the Iraq Situation" <ref> http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/historical_revi.html </ref> He states, quote: "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The militant Muslim Jihadis believe that a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge." (end of quote)

What the West decided to do was help the Reformation side win. To do that the West had to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. The battle had to happen somewhere, and since the West could not fight everywhere at once, the West chose to create a focal point for the battle, in Iraq. Mr Kraft went on to summarize what the West did and is doing which is important in Iraq, quote:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. This has focused the battle. The ones killed there won't have to be killed here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia. The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism. (end of quote)

Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] said in a floor speech on October 10, 2002,

{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. <ref>[http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq], United States Senate, October 10, 2002. </ref>}}

==Liberation From Ba'athist Tyranny==
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk [[helicopter]] for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]

After the decapitation of the Ba'athist leadership from the military under its command in April 2003, President Bush said in his address:
*Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html]

Other comments from President Bush's May 1, 2003 speech <ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html </ref> show that the context of these victory comments include warnings to Americans of an ongoing struggle to establish Iraqi democracy and counter the threat of terrorism. Quotes, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/12386 </ref>

Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> From 2004 to before the surge, the unceasing violence by the insurgents had caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref> [http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
Since the surge, this has ceased as 60-80% of the violence has been stopped. On Sat Feb 16, 2008 reuters reported, "Attacks by insurgents and rival sectarian militias have fallen up to 80 percent in Baghdad. The U.S. military says attacks have fallen across Iraq by 60 percent since June on the back of security clampdowns and the deployment of 30,000 extra American troops." <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/ts_nm/iraq_dc </ref>
[[Image:Bagpipe.jpg|left|thumb|400px|Proposed Baghdad reconstruction Plan]]
2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 showed that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis preferred the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security situation and a lack of public services. It also revealed that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis did not believe they were embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still wanted to see a united Iraq under a central national government. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf PDF Iraq Poll], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>and found that 56 percent of Iraqis did not believe there was a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent did not believe they were in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece Iraqis: life is getting better], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” <ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

On January 21, 2008 there was a report about a cache of documents discovered in the fall of 2007 by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar. It gave the individual records of 606 foreign fighers who entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007 saying, "Based on the Sinjar records, U.S. military officials in Iraq said they now think that nine out of 10 suicide bombers have been foreigners, compared with earlier estimates of 75 percent. Similarly, they assess that 90 percent of foreign fighters entering Iraq during the one-year period ending in August came via Syria, a greater proportion than previously believed. Although Saudi Arabia was by far the most common country of origin of foreign fighters, with about 40 percent of the total, a surprising share -- 19 percent -- came from Libya. Overall, about 40 percent were North African." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/20/AR2008012002609.html </ref> This certainly justifies these poll results where Iraqis stated that many of the attacks against the Iraqi populace are the work of foreign forces rather than out of the Iraqi population (civil war).

==Insurgency==
Since the removal of Saddam, Iraq has seen the rise of sectarian violence between [[Sunni]] Muslims and [[Shia]] Muslims. To many Sunnis, the US has been viewed suspiciously because it supports the democratically elected Shia majority rule. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilege of doing so. There are also some intractable Sunni whose interpretation of Muslim law says that the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation.

The Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have had militant factions who have not only attacked Sunni Muslims but have also attacked American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the democratically elected Shia from Sunni attacks. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule instead of seeking unity and a cohesive and representatively fair national political structure, which has hampered political progress and reconciliation efforts. <ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

However, as reported on May 31, 07, in the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]] as well as Sunni insurgents." <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

With 80% of the violence ended, the united government of Iraq will be much more able to fight the remaining intractable 20% of fighters left - including the foreign and imported terrorist entity Al-Qaeda with its recruits.

===Propaganda===

Since the invasion in 2003, both Shiite and Sunni clerics have been repeating over and over again that the Americans and their mostly "[[Christian]]" allies are in Iraq to destroy [[Islam]] in its cultural heartland as well as to steal the country’s oil. The clerics dismiss all talk of [[democracy]] and [[human rights]] by the invaders as mere hypocrisy--except for [[women’s rights]], which are promoted in earnest, the clerics say, to induce Iraqi daughters and wives to dishonor their families by aping the shameless disobedience of Western women.

At first, a majority of Iraqis believed these religious leaders. The alternative was difficult for them to believe--that foreigners have been unselfishly expending their own blood and treasure to help them. Some polls and incidents demonstrate to insurgents that Americans are out to rob Muslim Iraqis not only of their territory and oil, but also of their religion and even their family honor. The most visible effects of these sentiments were the deadly attacks, the aiding and abetting of such attacks, and celebration by impromptu crowds of spectators. When the victims are members of the Iraqi police or National Guard, bystanders, family members, and local clerics routinely accused the Americans of being the attackers--usually by missile strikes that cleverly simulate car-bombs. As to why the Americans would want to kill Iraqis they are themselves recruiting, training, and paying, no explanation was offered, because no obligation was felt to unravel each and every sub-plot of the dark "Christian conspiracy" against Iraq, the Arab world, and Islam. <ref>Luttwak Testimony, [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Committee on Foreign Relations,]U.S. Senate, pgs. 6-7.</ref>

One key to the success which has now spread all across Iraq and caused a drop in violence in Iraq by 60-80% <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/ts_nm/iraq_dc </ref> is the willingness of the Sunnis to take back their country from the insurgent violence. In an article February 10, 2008 called, "U.S. Military Says Seized Docs Show Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Weakened" it states, "A diary and another document seized during U.S. raids show some Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders fear the terror group is crumbling, with many fighters defecting to American-backed neighborhood groups."

The reason for this shift, "the author describes an Al Qaeda in crisis, with citizens growing weary of militants' presence and foreign fighters too eager to participate in suicide missions rather than continuing to fight, "We lost cities and afterward, villages... We find ourselves in a wasteland desert," Smith quoted the document as saying. The memo — believed to have been written in summer 2007 — cites militants' increasing difficulty in moving around and transporting weapons and suicide belts because of better equipped Iraqi police and more watchful citizens, Smith said."

The populace of Iraq has rejected the extremist viewpoint and are now willing to stand up and do what it takes to get peace in the country for themselves and their future. The article further states, "The diary, seized by U.S. troops south of Balad, was written in autumn 2007 by Abu Tariq, who refers to himself as sector leader for al-Qaida in Iraq, Smith said. Tariq wrote that he was once in charge of 600 fighters, but only 20 were left "after the tribes changed course" — a reference to how many Sunni tribesmen have switched sides to fight alongside the Americans, Smith said. The new organizations, called awakening councils or neighborhood watch groups, were key to helping push Al Qaeda in Iraq out of Anbar province, once one of the country's most violent. The terror network's top leaders are now based somewhere in northern Iraq, Smith said, having moved out of Anbar and into Diyala province last year.<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330235,00.html </ref>

The indomitable spirit of the Iraqis has been put to the test and is prevailing against their enemies as they stand up for their country and reject the extremist view and their brutal ways (including torture) which are documented in the next section.

Most U.S. media companies have a significant stake in shaping the view of this conflict with the American public. Propaganda by U.S. media companies reported a common theme; advocating American failure and defeat in Iraq. As the conflict raged, the American public was given large doses of negative reporting for four years. During 2007, General Petraeus got approval and implimented the 'Surge' strategy for securing Bagdad. Result, deaths and bombings by militias, rogue bandits and terror cells have significantly decreased. Success was rarely reported including the 'Surge' progress. No longer the chance of a failed state along with an extraordinary decrease in violence, U.S. media reportings on Iraq are now virtually non-existent.

===Al-Qaeda's Use Of Torture===

Key to any insurgency is its ability to have the support of the people, or at least their assent. If the people turn against the insurgency as they now have in Iraq, the insurgents have no basis of operations to hide in and the insurgency crumbles. This is why the insurgents have fled to northern Iraq, as stated above. However, working toward forcing cooperation by the populace, the terrorists in Iraq have used incredible amounts of intimidation - kidnap, torture, threats and murder - to prevent the local Iraqi populace from cooperating with those who will bring them a free and democratic Iraq (the US/Coalition forces and the Democratically aligned Iraqi government forces). From the ordinary Iraqi's point of view, cooperating with those who will bring them freedom can have a high cost. If found out, the media will splash their name all over the papers, making it easy for the terrorists to target them for reprisals. Family members can go missing or they can. They could be tortured or killed.

The great tragedy in the Mainstream Media ([[MSM]]) covering up the inhumane torture methods of the terrorists while trumpeting outrage at the far milder US intimidation techniques (Abu Gharib, etc), is that it hides from public view what risks the Iraqi population must take to cooperate with those who would bring them their freedom. In the article, "Media Totally Ignore Al Qaeda Torture Manual" it says, "Glenn Reynolds this morning pointed out that “Silence is complicity,” while leading the reader to Don Surber’s piece on the subject which went much further in condemning the media boycott (emphasis added): And yet such false stories as the “flushed Koran” got widespread play in the newspapers and on television. We are hearing those awful “Sounds of Silence” that Simon and Garfunkel warned us about. Whether intentional or not, the message is clear: The United States must be above even false reports of torture, while the enemy is allowed to promote eye removal, blowtorching skin and horrors I won’t go into. The handbook shows that the enemy really is perverted; they are sickos who like to torture people. As much as I admire and respect John McCain’s war service, he is wrong when he says our interrogation methods encourage the enemy to torture our people. The enemy was torturing and beheading people well before 9/11."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/13002</ref>

Apart from brief mentions on Fox News and CNN, reports on this issue in the days prior or subsequent have been few. As a result, the populace of the US sees daily news coverage of just how ruthless the insurgents are in their attacks upon the populace in the way of guns and bombs, but are not given substantive evidence of the intimidation (torture) which the Iraqi people face. And it is this torture and intimidation which was the direct cause of slowing US progress, hampering the swift end of the insurgency in Iraq. Thinking that the people of Iraq support the insurgency and are not merely being intimidated by them, the US populace has been impatient for instant progress and their support for the Iraqi people obtaining their freedom from such a ruthless enemy waned. As a result - before the success of the surge, the drop in violence and the standing up of the Iraqis against this intimidation - US support for the war dropped significantly and many discouraged American people turned to supporting the anti-American sentiments of the far left saying America should pull the troops from Iraq.

CNN Headline News anchor Glenn Beck stated "[If the United States were to withdraw, it] would be America’s most shameful act of immorality since slavery". He added that Democrat Congressional war opponents are "just plain stupid" and "can't see the future." Beck stated that if U.S. forces pull out, a "genocide" will take place that will make Darfur "look like a picnic." For support he turned to Van Hipp, Chairman and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army who said, "Unfortunately, Glenn, I believe you`re right. And I tell you, if we surrender now, I believe you will see a humanitarian catastrophe much like or even worse than the situation in Darfur right now, the death count -- and the estimate right now beginning in a few months, they could be looking at 100,000 deaths a month." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/24/gb.01.html </ref>

John McCain, on Feb 15, 2008 delineated his position for the continuance of the war effort stated in this article, "Republican frontrunner John McCain drew sharp distinctions with his Democratic White House rivals over Iraq, saying an untimely US withdrawal would bring about "genocide." "Both Senator Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal. That means chaos. That means genocide," the Arizona senator told CNN's Larry King late Thursday. "That means undoing all the success we've achieved, and Al-Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America. I won't let that happen, as president of the United States."<ref> http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/McCain:_Early_Pullout_Fro/2008/02/15/72973.html
</ref>

==The Surge And Progress In Iraq==



Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamic radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

The increasing pressure from US forces with this Surge strategy has caused Sadr and his commanders flee to Iran as The Guardian reported Feb 15, 07, "Senior commanders of the Mehdi army, the militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have been spirited away to Iran to avoid being targeted in the new security push in Baghdad, a high-level Iraqi official told the Guardian. "Over the last three weeks, they [Iran] have taken away from Baghdad the first and second-tier military leaders of the Mehdi army," he said. The aim of the Iranians was to "prevent the dismantling of the infrastructure of the Shia militias" in the Iraqi capital -- one of the chief aims of the United States-backed security drive. The chief US military spokesperson in Baghdad said the anti-Western cleric had fled to Iran. US forces were tracking him "very closely", he said.
<ref> http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=299085 </ref>

The Surge is showing signs as a solid strategy which is being used to good effect as Al Jazeera reports that the Baathist terrorists have begun to criticize Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in their article Sunni group condemns Iraq al-Qaeda <ref> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A6EC4EAB-854C-4D2F-A922-754648CDED8D.htm </ref> where it states: "An influential Iraqi Sunni armed group has called on al-Qaeda in Iraq to “review” its behaviour in the country. The Islamic Army in Iraq, believed to be the largest group of former Baathists and army officers fighting Iraqi and US forces, called on Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, to take more responsibility for al-Qaeda in Iraq. “Killing Sunnis has become a legitimate target for them, especially rich ones. Either they pay them what they want or they kill them,” a statement from the group said. “They would kill any critic or whoever tries to show them their mistakes.” Sunni Arab officials have also urged what they call “the real resistance” to disown al-Qaeda and engage in talks with the government to end violence which has driven the country closer to an all-out civil war."

Now, the increasing pressure appears to have caused an actual break in relations between terrorist groups as this April 12, 07 article states, quote, "One of Iraq's main armed groups has confirmed a split with al-Qaeda, according to a spokesman for the dissenting organisation. Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened. ".. after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members. They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don't recognise their establishment of an Islamic state - we consider it invalid." The Islamic Army in Iraq is one of several nationalist groups which opposes hitting Iraqi civilians, but it has carried out high-profile attacks against multinational forces. Al-Shammari said they would be willing to deal with the Americans if certain conditions are met. Al-Shammari said that his group didn't consider US forces to be the main danger in Iraq. "There are two occupations: Iranian and American, and the Iranian one is more dangerous than American because Iran considers Iraq as a part of their country." The Islamic Army in Iraq's statement comes after Iraq's president said the presidential office was in contact with five insurgent groups. Jalal Talabani said on Wednesday that the contacts mark an attempt to bring the groups into the mainstream political process. <ref> http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16414 </ref>

Additional progress was detailed in "Corps Commander Highlights Progress in Iraq", Apr 13, 2007, where Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps in Iraq said there has been progress in the security situation in Baghdad. Three of the five promised U.S. brigades are in place in the city, an additional three Iraqi brigade headquarters and 11 additional battalions have moved into Baghdad in support of the operation. Twenty-six joint security stations in Baghdad are manned by Iraqi army, Iraqi police and coalition forces, as are more than 21 combat outposts. "This continuous presence is making the Iraqi people feel safer and has greatly increased the amount of information provided to the Iraqi army, police and coalition forces by the public," Odierno said. Sectarian murders have dropped in Baghdad, and some displaced families are returning to the city. In addition, coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled the number of arms caches found since the beginning of the operation two months ago. Security forces allow citizens to return to a more normal existence. "Across Baghdad, markets are being hardened with checkpoints and barriers, and merchants have returned to sell their produce," he said. "And Iraqis are busy shopping in the markets of Rusafa and Dura, and there are more projects such as these ... that will occur in the near future."

Positive changes are not limited to Baghdad, he said, they are also happening in Anbar province, where coalition and Iraqi security forces are working with local tribal leaders. "The people of al Anbar are fighting back and winning," Odierno said. "They've effectively turned back the tide of al Qaeda, but there will be counterattacks by al Qaeda." The general said there were nine attacks last week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. "During the same week a year ago, there were over 84 attacks," he said. Odierno said he also sees promise in the northern part of Iraq. Coalition forces there have set up 33 U.S. police transition teams to build law enforcement capability in that region. Oil is flowing out of the Bayji refinery thanks to Iraqi security force efforts to protect distribution tankers. Progress continues in the country's south, as well. "In the south, Operation Black Eagle in Diwaniyah, conducted by joint Iraqi and coalition forces, uncovered a headquarters of a rogue element of Jaysh al-Mahdi, with a major weapons cache including materials for IED-making," he said. Even the demonstrations called by radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr on April 9 to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq are a good sign, Odierno said. "This demonstration took place without incident," he said. "It is worth mentioning three points related to this demonstration. First, the government of Iraq allowed the demonstration to take place, unthinkable under the former regime. Second, the demonstrators waved Iraqi flags rather than black flags or pictures of ayatollahs. And third, the demonstrators numbered no more than 15,000, rather than the one million its organizers called for." <ref> http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/Corps_Commander_Highlights_Progress_in_Iraq5809.shtml </ref>

That being said, anti-democratic and sectarian violence in the war, as expected and predicted by the Bush Administration, is continuing: a recent Al-Qaida attack at the Parliamentary cafeteria killed one, and on April 18 2007, a series of car bombs killed 131 Baghdad residents. <ref>US CENTCOM Press Release, [http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Current%20Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=4767 131 Dead, More Than 160 Wounded by Multiple Car Bomb Attacks in Baghdad Multi-National Division], Release Number: 07-01-03P, 4/18/2007. </ref>

In the ABC article, "Al-Qaida claims Iraq parliament attack", the U.S. military revised the death toll sharply downward to one dead in the the parliament suicide bombing. Iraqi officials said the bomber was believed to have been a bodyguard for a Sunni lawmaker who was not among the casualties. Parliament officials said the victim was Mohammed Awad, a moderate Sunni lawmaker. Iraqi lawmakers gathered Friday in a rare - and defiant - session of parliament on the Muslim day of prayer. A red and white bouquet sat in Awad's place in the parliament chamber. Lawmakers took the podium one after another to denounce the bombing. One MP had his arm in sling and a woman lawmaker wore a neck brace. "The more they (terrorists) act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we will offer more martyrs," Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said. "The more they target our unity, the stronger our unity becomes." Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said Friday's session was "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this (political) process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue." <ref> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=5205895 </ref>

At a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (reported Fri Apr 20, 2007), Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi said the Iraqis are making progress in countering the insurgency. "Our need for support is getting less and less each day," al-Obaidi said. Gates said the U.S. troop buildup will continue at least until late summer. "We need some time for things to work," he said. Three of the five extra brigades Bush ordered into Iraq to stem violence have arrived. Officials want the rest in place by June, for a total of 160,000. Soon after that, they will assess how much longer the higher troop level — about 30,000 more than before the buildup — will be needed. Since the troop buildup or "Surge" has not even been completed, it is not surprising that the premature and rash comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying the war was already lost and the troop buildup was not stemming violence in Iraq were rejected by Gates. "I respectfully disagree," Gates said when asked by a reporter about Reid's Thursday remarks. He assured al-Maliki that the U.S. continues to be committed to the Iraqi government and the Baghdad security plan, Gates said.<ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq </ref>

April 20, 2007 - Iraqi President Nouri al Malaki affirmed the indigenous Iraqi Assyrian Christians' right to have a Province of their own, which could be provided for under the Iraqi Constitution. Malaki was addressing questions concerning the minorities, many of whom are in neighboring countries, including an estimated nearly 500,000 Assyrian Christians. Additionally, Malaki said, "I think it is important to let the world know that things in our country are improving dramatically. Our unemployment rate has gone from nearly 70 percent to now under 30 percent. Our most recent growth rate was 3 percent and we have seen, in particular as a result of the recent Baghdad program, a dramatic drop in so-called sectarian violence. What is particularly encouraging to me is the changes we have seen in our security forces and the trust from our people once again. We are finally seeing individual citizens provide information to our forces, which has changed the situation dramatically in rooting out those who are determined to ruin our country."

Malaki stressed three key goals. National Reconciliation, Economic Development and Expanded Security as the way forward. "In spite of much information to the contrary, we are seeing a return to the Iraq we all once knew when we considered ourselves all Iraqis and not belonging to a particular sect or group," he said. "Recently we have brought back large numbers of former members of the Ba'ath Party who were not involved in any problems in the past and this has significantly helped to bring our people together. Economic development is taking place at a good rate. Part of the reason we are here is to encourage even more investment into our country. The monthly income of our people has gone from about $20 a month to now over $200. The dramatic rise in electrical use is one good sign that the economy is taking off. The stores are full." Describing the current military situation as "moving from sectarian to outside interference," Malaki stressed that the so called Baghdad Plan was working. "We are seeing a dramatic drop in the sectarian conflicts and see our major challenge as that from the outside including Al Quaida and remainders of the Ba'athist groups," he said. "In the end we will be able to take care of ourselves. Meanwhile, we need the help of our friends to stand against those who want to harm us."
<ref> http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040107.htm </ref>

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in a recent interview, that the increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in the country had achieved "modest progress" but had also had setbacks such as a rise in suicide bombings and other problems. Petraeus also stated that he was uncertain whether his counterinsurgency strategy would be ultimately succeed, but he stated "We have certainly pulled [Baghdad] neighborhoods back from the brink." Assessing the first two months of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to pacify the capital, senior American commanders -- including Petraeus; Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. forces in the Middle East; Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of military operations in Iraq; and top regional commanders -- see mixed results. Critical now, they said in interviews last week, is for Iraqi leaders to forge the political compromises needed for long-term stability. The deployment of additional troops in Baghdad is only 60 percent complete, and a major concern shared by U.S. military leaders is whether al-Maliki's government is capable of solidifying gains in security as well as making the crucial political compromises needed to achieve peace.
<ref> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70422011</ref>

In an interview of Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak Al-Rubaie aired May 10, 2007, Mr. Rubaie stated, "This is an ideological war. This is a -- a long-term war. This is a war on a global scale. This is a war, if it gets out of control, it will spill over to Europe and America in no time. And it will disturb the oil flow in the Gulf. What happened in Iraq is not something minor and simple, like a coup d'etat or a revolution. What happened is a hurricane. What happened is a huge, major shift, from the old order of 1,000 years of persecution, of dictatorship, of religious supremacy, of prosecuting minorities, to a completely new order, which is called democracy, human rights, accountability, and transparency, and all this. This paradigm shift needs some time. You cannot -- it needs strategic patience. And it needs time. You cannot fit this major shift and the strategic objectives in the election cycle of Washington. You cannot do that."

He went on to note progress and plead for patience, "I think we made a remarkable progress over the last three years. In June 2004, we had only one battalion in the Iraqi army. Now we have 11 divisions. And, in June 2004, we did not have policemen. We did not have national police, local police, an intelligence service. We didn't have anything. Now we have Iraqi security forces, several hundreds of thousands of them. And what we need, we need some refinements, some tuning. We need some training. And we need some equipment and logistical support. We need to build the system within the Iraqi security forces. In a very short period of time, we're going to be self-reliant."

"Take, for example, in Baghdad. Last year, Baghdad was under the command of an American general called General Thurman. And now Baghdad is under the command-and- control of general -- an Iraqi general called General Abboud. And he is commanding and leading and controlling 2.5 Iraqi army division and 11 or 13 Iraqi police, national police, brigades. -- we needed the upsurge, and we need the upsurge to clear some areas of these neighborhoods and to hold them and to build them. When we have this upsurge, let's the best use of it. And let's clear these areas and hold it and build it." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/10/acd.01.html </ref>

May 12, 2007, "Iraq's top Shi'ite party changes platform" gave the stunning news that "Iraq's biggest Shi'ite party, The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), pledged its allegiance to the country's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in a move that would distance it from Shi'ite Iran where it was formed. They said the party had been close to Sistani for some time, but a two-day conference formalised relations with the influential cleric. Officials said the party, which was formed in Iran in the 1980s to oppose Saddam, had previously taken its guidance from the religious establishment of Welayat al Faqih, led by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran. The party then pledged to follow the guidance of the Shi'ite establishment and also said it had introduced significant policy changes and changed its name to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) -- dropping the word "Revolution". <ref> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/tm_headline=iraq-s-top-shi-ite-party-changes-platform&method=full&objectid=19092898&siteid=89520-name_page.html </ref>

This was hailed in the Middle East as a very significant development, stating "The real change of direction and leadership of Iraqi Shiites to Sistani is the greatest victory of the new era of constitutionalism and civility in Iraq. The shifting of Shiite Islam to Najaf, instead of Qum, is a huge change and a direct result of Iraq's freedom that has changed the balance of power in Iraq and Iran. The New York Times-owned Boston Globe reports from Tehran that the influence of Iraqi Shiites is growing even there: "Some Iranians are intrigued by the more freewheeling experiment in Shi'ite empowerment taking place across the border in Iraq, where--Iraq's myriad problems aside--imams can say whatever they want in political Friday sermons, newspapers and satellite channels regularly slam the government, and religious observance is respected and encouraged but not required." <ref> http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2815&cid=2&sid=38 </ref>

CBS Evening News May 29, 2007 presented, "an exclusive interview, Iraq's Prime Minister tells CBS News the security crackdown is working." The network relayed how, “in his first American television interview since the U.S. troop surge began in February, Iraq's Prime Minister told CBS News today the additional forces here have prevented an even greater catastrophe.” Maliki also disclosed that there have been many victories in breaking up al Qaeda and other militant cells. <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13073 </ref>

Then on May 31, 07, the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" added, quote: U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease-fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said. He thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Sunni insurgents." He said the increased effort by commanders to reach out to militants goes hand in hand with reconciliation efforts by the Iraqi government. Odierno noted that efforts to engage tribal leaders in Anbar province — who have been turning against al-Qaida there — has helped draw people to serve in the Iraqi security forces in record numbers and has helped reduce attacks there. For example, the attacks in Anbar in May 2006 totaled 811, while this May they were just barely over 400. Since the beginning of 2007, over 12,000 Iraqi citizens have volunteered for Iraqi security forces in Anbar. In all of 2006, only 1,000 had volunteered. <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

Even Newsweek's June 4 edition on page 33, has a story by Melinda Liu on actual progress in Iraq, headlined: "Gathering the Tribes: U.S. field commanders are finally beginning to tap the traditional networks that helped Saddam stay in power." Liu reported from Ramadi that "Marines and Iraqi tribesmen and police are sitting together, swapping jokes and stories. Some of these Iraqis were probably shooting at Americans less than a year ago. Now they and the Marines are fighting side by side against Al Qaeda." The story also carried a large, bolded quote: 'Last year the Americans were our biggest enemies,' says one cop. 'Now they're how we get what we need.' The captions on the pictures read: PEACE SIGNS: Tribal recruits man a check-point in Ramadi (above); children and others now freely interact with Americans (right). <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13080 </ref>

And on May 31 a report "Sunnis Revolt Against al-Qaida in Iraq" confirmed the trend stating, "U.S. troops battled al-Qaida in west Baghdad on Thursday after Sunni Arab residents challenged the militants and called for American help to end furious gunfire that kept students from final exams and forced people in the neighborhood to huddle indoors. Backed by helicopter gunships, U.S. troops joined the two-day battle in the Amariyah district, according to residents of the Sunni district. Lt. Col. Dale C. Kuehl, commander of 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, who is responsible for the Amariyah area of the capital, confirmed the U.S. military's role in the fighting in the Sunni district. "The events of the past two days are promising developments. Sunni citizens of Amariyah that have been previously terrorized by al-Qaida are now resisting and want them gone. They're tired of the intimidation that included the murder of women," Kuehl said. Casualty figures were not immediately available. But the district councilman said Haji Hameed, the al-Qaida leader in Amariyah, was killed and 45 other fighters were detained. <ref>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/international/i154309D51.DTL </ref>

Meanwhile, U.S. forces handed over responsibility for security in Iraq's three northern provinces to the Kurdish regional government. Seven Iraqi provinces, including Najaf, Muthanna, Dhi Qar and Maysan, now have responsibility for their own security – a third of the total. The United States hopes to add more as Iraqi forces grow in capability. <ref> http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=74626 </ref>

March 2008 - 62% of Iraqis now say they want the US troops to stay in their country.. and a full 55% say their lives are going well. 

Marking the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, ABC's anchor Charles Gibson on World News Monday March 18, 2008 explained “we have polled inside Iraq and there is some good news.” Specifically, “today, 55 percent of Iraqi say their lives are going well. Last summer that number was 39 percent.” From Iraq, Terry McCarthy reported, "As our poll takers spread across the country they found that for the first time in three years, people were more worried about economic and social problems than violence. And almost half think their country will be better off in a year -- double the number six months ago. In Dora, in southern Baghdad, we found these kids playing on the street. A year ago, they would haven't dared to come outside.... McCarthy also noted in a telling reality check, only 38 percent want U.S. troops to leave now, afraid that the gains in security might be reversed.” This obviously means that 62 percent of the Iraqis polled want US troops to stay in their country until they are certain the gains in security and stability will not be reversed. “Even Fallujah has turned around,” McCarthy learned, “as the local population has largely abandoned the insurgency and now they're focusing on rebuilding the city from the ruins of war,” though tough tasks remain with most complaining about electrical shortages and poor health care services. <ref> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/18/abc-finds-optimistic-iraqis-kids-playing-safely-street </ref>

==Results of the Surge on casualties and terrorist attacks==

The surge has resulted in a 60% reduction in terrorist attacks and casualities since June of 2007 to the present.<ref>http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48515</ref>

==Iraq Strategy in Relation to the Global War on Terrorism==

As reported in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism <ref>http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/</ref> released April 30, 2007, there are steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe. Though terrorism has increased markedly in Iraq, aside from the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan according to State), the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is down from a year ago by over 300 incidents. In other words, the Bush administration's idea that making Iraq the "central front in the war on terror" seems to be working. According to the State report, terrorism in South Asia is down by 10 percent from a year ago. In Europe, it's down 18 percent. In Central and South America, terrorism-related deaths are down 54 percent. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/12431 </ref>

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war. But recently in June 2008, <ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5314609 The USA Military found 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium in Iraq]</ref> The USA Military found 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium and parts to make nuclear weapons in Tuwaitha 12 miles south of Baghdad, as proof that George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the CIA were right about Saddam owning yellow cake uranium that was going to be used to make weapons of mass destruction and also was a violation of the UN resolution after the Gulf War that said Saddam shouldn't own any yellow cake uranium, and justifies the invasion of Iraq.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> However, there is no way to obtain hard physical evidence to back up their assertions due to the fact that Syria will not allow such intrusive inspection and searching in their country. Intelligence sources do, however, say that General Al-Tikriti is a credible witness as is the pilot who also testified that he flew such missions.

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a nuclear weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

The UK government Feb 18, 2008 released an early draft of its controversial dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, after losing a bid to keep it secret. The government has always maintained Williams' paper was not relevant as the final dossier was the work of its intelligence agencies. The dossier, quote: "concentrates on allegations that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's regime had acquired uranium, retained the ability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons and was developing long-range missiles." Even the UK's opposition Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Edward Davey conceded that, "The core analysis of the threat allegedly posed by Iraq is the same in both documents." <ref> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080218/world/britain_iraq_war_dossier_politics_intelligence_1 </ref>

These allegations are not in dispute, as the quoted detractors in the article make clear when it says of them, "Campaigners have been pushing for it to be made public, claiming it could show that the final dossier -- in which it was claimed Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes -- was the work of government "spin doctors"."

Apart from whether Iraq could have launched WMD in that time frame, the core analysis shows ample reason and justification for beginning Operation Iraqi Freedom - including weapons grade uranium, the ability to launch long-range missiles at Western allies and the ability to manufacture at will chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was a WMD threat with malicious intent and although how close to launching such attacks he was remains in question, the fact he was one year from aquiring the bomb and was calling for attacks and agents to be in place (in the West) while developing missiles to deliver these weapons against allied Western targets, figured strongly in the case for war.

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. Another dozen were found later in June. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> This finding was updated 2 days later as testing found that all sixteen rockets had initially showed traces of sarin, but were now "all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref> The article went on to state, "In January 2003, U.N. inspectors discovered a dozen old 122-millimeter rockets that chief inspector Hans Blix described at the time as "designed to carry chemical weapons." Iraq later turned up several more, and all were destroyed. Blix later said he was not sure whether Iraq mentioned them in the 12,000-page weapons declaration it submitted in December 2002.

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

In the article The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself.<ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref>

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref>

SEE: The Saddam Connection To Osama by ABC News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFWCg1BdRg

Foxnews reported March 23, 2008 that "Saddam Hussein’s Son Plotted London Assassination Attack", stating that "Saddam Hussein's son Uday planned to carry out an attack in London, England to assassinate the leader of an Iraqi opposition group in April 2000." Based on seized documents, Uday Hussein's elite paramilitary group — the Fedayeen — were given orders "to carry out assassinations and bombings in London, the Times reported."

Further, "While the study showed no link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda, it does detail the former Iraq dictator's support for Middle Eastern terror groups, including those linked to Al Qaeda. Also in the report are memos showing Uday ordered officials to “start planning special operations in the centres of the traitors’ symbols in the fields of London / Iran / self-ruled areas [Kurdish northern Iraq]”, it was reported." <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340745,00.html </ref>

===Summary update on WMD and Iraq/terrorist/Al Qaeda connections NOT being falsified===

The Los Angeles Times article, "Bush never lied to us about Iraq - The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception." By James Kirchick, June 16, 2008, a great deal of summary about these two previous sections on WMD and links to the Al Qaeda are given. The article states that, "Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of the charge.. that the Bush administration deceived the American people. Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods." <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story </ref>

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." 

Even concerning the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, 2008, quote, "what did this report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program."

The article contends that if Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA. It then asserts, "This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers." <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story </ref>

Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt also brought out what Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee found in their June 5, 2008 report, saying, quote:
<ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html </ref>

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into [Sen. Jay] Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." 

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." 

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

Hiatt then noted what the Republican part of the report said, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence." 

<ref> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/06/09/bush-lied-argument-doesnt-match-facts-democrats-say </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Regime Intent===

The Iraqi Survey Group in interrogations of Ba'athist officials from the leadership of the intelligence and security services, and Qusay’s inner circle, undertook interviews of Ba'athists in custody. Some detainees’ statements were made to minimize their culpability leading to potential prosecution. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and were not willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the tendency to place blame or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fled the country, or providing debriefers with previously known information. Some former high ranking officials, such as ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid Al Tikriti (Chemical ‘Ali), never gave substantial information, despite speaking colorfully and at length. Some obstructed all attempts to elicit information on WMD and illicit activities of the former Regime. Others, however, were keen to help clarify every issue, sometimes to the point of self-incrimination.

The ISG's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Saddam and many Iraqis regarded chemical weapons as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the [[Iran-Iraq war]]— and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. After 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital, or the know-how that was developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Saddam indicated that he would develop the weapons necessary to counter any Iranian threat. Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program workers with know-how, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base. The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals. The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure.

ISG judged, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months. A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dualuse process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. Uday — head of the Fedayeen Saddam — attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories of which were never declared to the UN. The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime. In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose. At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years” agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes. ISG judged that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Threat Level Concern===

It is worth noting the following concerning a current controversy about the level of threat Saddam posed. If you consider the terrorists as various minority factions all working toward the same goal, as stated by Mr. Kraft on this page when he says, "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so." It doesn't matter which of these factions would have been used to specifically target the civilized world in a nuclear or biological/chemical attack. Although recently the extent of Saddam's ties to one specific group (the Al-Qaeda terrorists) has been questioned and a recent article stated that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, the same article goes on to say concerning Al-Qaeda that "it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html </ref> Therefore, it is known that Saddam had forged long term relationships with known terrorist GROUPS (plural) and so it was not that there was no threat from any terrorists groups, just that the threat would have come from those OTHER terrorists as the threat to the collective security of the civilized world if the US hadn't taken out Saddam.

It also remains to be seen if the ties with Al-Qaeda would have remained "limited" if that group had stepped up and volunteered to take the completed nuclear weapons from Saddam (which he would have had within a year according to The New York Times - see the WMD section, this page) into Washington and detonate them using sophisticated and existing sleeper cell suicide bombers as Saddam was contemplating. It appears likely that Saddam would have listened and handed them his stocks of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by his statements (see Mr. Tierney's translation on this page). From his past actions, Saddam was an equal opportunity employer for all the terrorist groups.. including those they admit in this report with whom he had "long-term relationships." As Mr. Kraft observes, it is many "barbarians" at our gates with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for the first time, not only one group (Al-Qaeda.) It is global in scope, hence the reason for calling this a "Global War on Terror" not a "War on Terror in Iraq." As such, it is a fight for world supremacy, and the civilized world would do well not to ignore or minimize what the civilized world is fighting over.

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

In the exhaustive search for WMDs in Iraq, CNN has left all stones unturned - or have they? These are the words right out of the mouth of CNN reporter Jane Arraf <ref> http://www.cjr.org/iraq/chapt1.html </ref>, quote: "And if you had a bureau there, like we did, and it was a known bureau and a known company like CNN was, it was a beacon for everybody. It was a beacon for Iraqis who believed they had stories. Iraqis would show up, there would be Iraqis lined up outside the door. There... would be the Iraqis who told you they had nuclear documents in their basement and would you like to come and look [laughter]. You know, there was almost that pang when you turned somebody away, [you were] thinking, “Damn, maybe this guy really does have nuclear weapons in his basement, but I don’t have time.” So you never really knew."

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref> A 2008 study estimated that the Iraq War cost the United States $12 billion a month.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_costs;_ylt=ApGg20eC4zcjyEaIxwc8CC6s0NUE Studies: Iraq costs US $12 billion per month]</ref> This makes the Iraq war the most expensive endeavor in U.S. history.

==Casualties==

Former U.S. Attorney General in the [[Johnson Administration]], [[Ramsey Clark]], wrote the UN Security Council on 29 July 29 2002 claiming UN sanctions , "are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people" <ref>[http://www.radioislam.org/bush/act.htm Letter from Ramsey Clark to the U.N. Security Council members], 29 July 29 2002.</ref> A 1999 [[UNICEF]] Report stated that there were, at that time, 500,000 deaths of children under the age of five probably attributable to the U.N. sanctions. <ref>[http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm Iraq Surveys Show Humanitarian Emergency], (August 12, 1999).</ref>

===Coalition Troops===

According to the US Department of Defense, over 4,100 U.S. and 300 troops from coalition countries have died in the war. Over 30,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref> Despite a dramatic decrease in violence in the latter half of the year, 2007 was the worst year in Iraq in terms of U.S. casualties. Over 900 American troops died or went [[missing in action]] during the year.<ref>[www.icasualties.org Iraq War casualties]</ref>

===Enemy Casualties===

in March, 2007, Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton, a military historian, calculated that, "a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end. This is an entire generation of jihadists, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society." <ref> http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M </ref>

===Civilian Casualties===

Estimates of civilian casualties vary. According to Fox News, March 20, 2007, over 54,000 civilians have been killed in the war. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259875,00.html</ref> However, due to suicide bombings and other such activity, the fatalities caused by US/Coalition forces in action was only 31 percent of the total number given according to CNN's report October 2006, <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ </ref> down from 32 percent quoted by this Boston Globe report <ref> http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jackson191205.htm </ref> dated December 19, 2005. In the Fox News study, that would mean 16,740 of the 54,000 casualties.
On November 11, 2006, Iraqi Health Minister Ali al-Shamari estimated that between 100,000 and 150,000 civilians had been killed during the war.<ref>[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/11/2003335773 Iraq death toll may go as high as 150,000]</ref> A 2008 estimate by the [[World Health Organization]] placed the civilian death toll at 151,000.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080110/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_survey_dc 151,000 Iraqis killed since U.S.-led invasion: WHO]</ref>

==Summary of Justifications for the Iraq War Taken From This Entry==

If President Bush had not removed Saddam Hussein we now know that, QUOTE: The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a nuclear weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref> (end quote)

And we know that Saddam was discussing using WMD on Washington, DC (remember/keep-in-mind his soon nuclear capability from the last paragraph), QUOTE: In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref> (end quote)

President Bush's decision to depose Saddam Hussein meant that this plan Saddam was discussing in these tapes here - or with the atomic nuclear capacity he was to possess within a year - never came into execution. It is credible that literally MILLIONS of Americans are alive today because Saddam was stopped before he had the ability to put his plans into action. We know he had ties to terrorists, including, QUOTE:

In the article "The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden" dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself. <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq?" The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr Bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref> (end quote)

To say that the US should never have deposed Saddam when he posed such a threat is irresponsible. The detractors from the Iraq War today would presently be decrying the dead and dying in America and saying President Bush should have gone to war to prevent such devastating losses, had he refrained from engaging in the Iraq War. We know that since then Bin Laden has worked toward attacking the US on his own, without the assistance of Saddam. QUOTE:

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref> (end quote)

The act of war on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein was justified to protect the Homeland of America from Saddam's planned and certain future catastrophic attack. The red herring <ref> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html </ref> of not finding the WMD in Saddam's backyard does not diminish the threat to the Homeland of America because Saddam had proven his willingness to use such WMD on the Kurdish people in Iraq <ref> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article351987.ece
</ref> and he would have had the atom bomb within a year by expert opinion. To expect that he would not have put into execution his stated aims against America is to act like an ostrich and put one's head in the sand.

If the atomic threat is not sufficient, under "regime intent", above, the Iraqi Survey Group's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. The section on The Duelfer Report points out that there were reference strains of biological agents which were found and evidence of the ability to quickly start chemical and biological warfare production, QUOTE: Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents (end quote)

Saddam's son in law tells Saddam, quote: In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref> (end quote)
Also, there is credible testimony that Saddam had the weapons and moved them, quote: Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> (end quote)

There are those who think that attacks upon America must actually happen in order to prove that these things exist or pose an imminent threat. The Iraq War was a preventative war and as such its merit relies on the mental ability of the public to perceive future threats and act in keeping with that threat and not ignore it - just as a person must swerve their car in the face of oncoming traffic in order to avoid an accident. As with this example, it does little good to discuss the merits of whether there would have been a crash or not after the fact since the evidence of past destruction which was avoided will never be obtainable.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.
*[http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx CENTCOM] Home page.

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category: United States of America]]

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2008-07-06T16:59:20Z

Orion Blastar: /* Weapons of Mass Destruction */

'''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' is the largest of several active fronts in the ongoing [[War on Terrorism]]. Other fronts include [[Afghanistan]], [[Philippines]], and the [[Horn of Africa]]. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 3 March 2003 with the removal of the [[Ba'athist]] regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] by a "Coalition of the Willing" led by the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>. An interim government, Constitutional Assembly, and later an elected Parliament and Executive have assumed authority, however sectarian insurgent violence has hindered stability and reconstruction efforts by US contractors and the new government. Iraq's new Constitution strictly limits the emergency powers of the Executive in dealing with civil strife--a post Saddam democratic reform.

President [[George W. Bush]] and Senator [[John McCain]] are among the strongest proponents of Operation Iraq Freedom, and support continuing it until a sustained Democracy is in place that can repel terrorism on its own.

==Background To Regime Change==

In the post-[[9/11]] analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide [[jihad]]ists, the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason.<ref>Chris Suellentrop, [http://slate.msn.com/id/1008414/ Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?], Slate, Oct. 9, 2001.</ref><ref>Norman Bauman, [http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/wtc.htm Why they hate us: "Stopping cancer treatments will not topple a dictatorship"], 14 October 2001.</ref><ref>Michael Rubin, [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm Sanctions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?], Middle East review of International Affairs, Volume 5, No. 4 - December 2001.</ref><ref>Matt Welch, [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?], Reason Magazine, March 2002.</ref><ref>Alan W. Dowd, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_33/ai_109580224 Thirteen Years of Causes and Consequences for the Was in Iraq], Parameters, Autumn, 2003.[http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_epy/pi_epy_02.html]</ref> After the Gulf War of 1991 the United States kept troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against an Iraqi invasion of the Kingdom. In the findings of the the 9/11 Commission Report for example, in a section entitled, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'', referring to Osama bin Laden's motivations for his Declaration of War and attack on the United States, the Commission found the following:
:He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.<ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'']</ref>

Saddam had taken advantage of corruption in both the [[United Nations]] Secretariat and [[Security Council]] to revive the Iraqi economy after the 1991 [[Gulf War]] through the [[Oil for Food]] program, nevertheless few of the intended beneficiaries of these alleged UN humanitarian efforts saw the intended relief. Meanwhile, Saddam kept intact the "intellectual capital" or "know-how" to revive [[weapons of mass destruction]] (WMD) programs which were credited with ensuring the survival of the Ba'athist regime in both the 1980-1988 War with Iran, and preventing a US overthrow of the regime in 1991. As the 90s progressed and the millennium changed, Saddam's top priority was ending the sanctions, and then a full resumption of operational WMD programs. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Regime Strategic Intent], Duelfer Report, 2004.</ref>
[[Image:Dynamicduo.JPG|right|thumb|300px|Sen. Hillary Clinton was a leading spokesperson in the bipartisan decision to commit troops to Iraq.]]
Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]], addressing a gathering of the radical anti-war group [[Code Pink]] spoke from her own knowledge and experience,
{{Cquote|'''There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. …For now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children.''' <ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref> }}

Eygptian President [[Hosni Mubarek]] and Libyan [[Socialist]] General Secretary [[Muammar Gaddafi]] in negotiations with [[Saddam Hussein]] relayed a message through Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] and Spanish President [[Jose Maria Aznar]] to UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] and US President [[George W. Bush]] that Saddam would be willing to avoid removal by force and voluntarily go into exile, provided Saddam was allowed to take $1 billion dollars and "all the information he wants about [[weapons of mass destruction]]." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/saddam_risked_his_life_for_wmd_1.asp Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets], ''WeeklyStandard.com. Spetember 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639 Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion], ''Editor & Publisher'', September 26, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion], He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms, By Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz, ''[[Washington Post]], September 27, 2007; Page A17.</ref><ref>[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref> For 12 years, the international community gave Saddam chance after chance, Saddam defied it all including WMD declarations. Dozens of [[UN]] resolutions and mandated sanctions failed to persuade Saddam's grip on power. In 1998, the course for present day Iraq began in earnest. President Clinton signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act. This act declares that it should be the policy of the [[United States]] to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

==Arguments For Regime Change==

The concern which has led to this front on the War on Terror was summarized by Raymond S. Kraft in his "Historical Review of the Iraq Situation" <ref> http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/historical_revi.html </ref> He states, quote: "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The militant Muslim Jihadis believe that a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge." (end of quote)

What the West decided to do was help the Reformation side win. To do that the West had to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. The battle had to happen somewhere, and since the West could not fight everywhere at once, the West chose to create a focal point for the battle, in Iraq. Mr Kraft went on to summarize what the West did and is doing which is important in Iraq, quote:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. This has focused the battle. The ones killed there won't have to be killed here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia. The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism. (end of quote)

Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] said in a floor speech on October 10, 2002,

{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. <ref>[http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq], United States Senate, October 10, 2002. </ref>}}

==Liberation From Ba'athist Tyranny==
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk [[helicopter]] for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]

After the decapitation of the Ba'athist leadership from the military under its command in April 2003, President Bush said in his address:
*Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html]

Other comments from President Bush's May 1, 2003 speech <ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html </ref> show that the context of these victory comments include warnings to Americans of an ongoing struggle to establish Iraqi democracy and counter the threat of terrorism. Quotes, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/12386 </ref>

Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> From 2004 to before the surge, the unceasing violence by the insurgents had caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref> [http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
Since the surge, this has ceased as 60-80% of the violence has been stopped. On Sat Feb 16, 2008 reuters reported, "Attacks by insurgents and rival sectarian militias have fallen up to 80 percent in Baghdad. The U.S. military says attacks have fallen across Iraq by 60 percent since June on the back of security clampdowns and the deployment of 30,000 extra American troops." <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/ts_nm/iraq_dc </ref>
[[Image:Bagpipe.jpg|left|thumb|400px|Proposed Baghdad reconstruction Plan]]
2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 showed that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis preferred the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security situation and a lack of public services. It also revealed that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis did not believe they were embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still wanted to see a united Iraq under a central national government. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf PDF Iraq Poll], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>and found that 56 percent of Iraqis did not believe there was a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent did not believe they were in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece Iraqis: life is getting better], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” <ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

On January 21, 2008 there was a report about a cache of documents discovered in the fall of 2007 by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar. It gave the individual records of 606 foreign fighers who entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007 saying, "Based on the Sinjar records, U.S. military officials in Iraq said they now think that nine out of 10 suicide bombers have been foreigners, compared with earlier estimates of 75 percent. Similarly, they assess that 90 percent of foreign fighters entering Iraq during the one-year period ending in August came via Syria, a greater proportion than previously believed. Although Saudi Arabia was by far the most common country of origin of foreign fighters, with about 40 percent of the total, a surprising share -- 19 percent -- came from Libya. Overall, about 40 percent were North African." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/20/AR2008012002609.html </ref> This certainly justifies these poll results where Iraqis stated that many of the attacks against the Iraqi populace are the work of foreign forces rather than out of the Iraqi population (civil war).

==Insurgency==
Since the removal of Saddam, Iraq has seen the rise of sectarian violence between [[Sunni]] Muslims and [[Shia]] Muslims. To many Sunnis, the US has been viewed suspiciously because it supports the democratically elected Shia majority rule. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilege of doing so. There are also some intractable Sunni whose interpretation of Muslim law says that the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation.

The Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have had militant factions who have not only attacked Sunni Muslims but have also attacked American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the democratically elected Shia from Sunni attacks. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule instead of seeking unity and a cohesive and representatively fair national political structure, which has hampered political progress and reconciliation efforts. <ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

However, as reported on May 31, 07, in the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]] as well as Sunni insurgents." <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

With 80% of the violence ended, the united government of Iraq will be much more able to fight the remaining intractable 20% of fighters left - including the foreign and imported terrorist entity Al-Qaeda with its recruits.

===Propaganda===

Since the invasion in 2003, both Shiite and Sunni clerics have been repeating over and over again that the Americans and their mostly "[[Christian]]" allies are in Iraq to destroy [[Islam]] in its cultural heartland as well as to steal the country’s oil. The clerics dismiss all talk of [[democracy]] and [[human rights]] by the invaders as mere hypocrisy--except for [[women’s rights]], which are promoted in earnest, the clerics say, to induce Iraqi daughters and wives to dishonor their families by aping the shameless disobedience of Western women.

At first, a majority of Iraqis believed these religious leaders. The alternative was difficult for them to believe--that foreigners have been unselfishly expending their own blood and treasure to help them. Some polls and incidents demonstrate to insurgents that Americans are out to rob Muslim Iraqis not only of their territory and oil, but also of their religion and even their family honor. The most visible effects of these sentiments were the deadly attacks, the aiding and abetting of such attacks, and celebration by impromptu crowds of spectators. When the victims are members of the Iraqi police or National Guard, bystanders, family members, and local clerics routinely accused the Americans of being the attackers--usually by missile strikes that cleverly simulate car-bombs. As to why the Americans would want to kill Iraqis they are themselves recruiting, training, and paying, no explanation was offered, because no obligation was felt to unravel each and every sub-plot of the dark "Christian conspiracy" against Iraq, the Arab world, and Islam. <ref>Luttwak Testimony, [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Committee on Foreign Relations,]U.S. Senate, pgs. 6-7.</ref>

One key to the success which has now spread all across Iraq and caused a drop in violence in Iraq by 60-80% <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/ts_nm/iraq_dc </ref> is the willingness of the Sunnis to take back their country from the insurgent violence. In an article February 10, 2008 called, "U.S. Military Says Seized Docs Show Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Weakened" it states, "A diary and another document seized during U.S. raids show some Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders fear the terror group is crumbling, with many fighters defecting to American-backed neighborhood groups."

The reason for this shift, "the author describes an Al Qaeda in crisis, with citizens growing weary of militants' presence and foreign fighters too eager to participate in suicide missions rather than continuing to fight, "We lost cities and afterward, villages... We find ourselves in a wasteland desert," Smith quoted the document as saying. The memo — believed to have been written in summer 2007 — cites militants' increasing difficulty in moving around and transporting weapons and suicide belts because of better equipped Iraqi police and more watchful citizens, Smith said."

The populace of Iraq has rejected the extremist viewpoint and are now willing to stand up and do what it takes to get peace in the country for themselves and their future. The article further states, "The diary, seized by U.S. troops south of Balad, was written in autumn 2007 by Abu Tariq, who refers to himself as sector leader for al-Qaida in Iraq, Smith said. Tariq wrote that he was once in charge of 600 fighters, but only 20 were left "after the tribes changed course" — a reference to how many Sunni tribesmen have switched sides to fight alongside the Americans, Smith said. The new organizations, called awakening councils or neighborhood watch groups, were key to helping push Al Qaeda in Iraq out of Anbar province, once one of the country's most violent. The terror network's top leaders are now based somewhere in northern Iraq, Smith said, having moved out of Anbar and into Diyala province last year.<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330235,00.html </ref>

The indomitable spirit of the Iraqis has been put to the test and is prevailing against their enemies as they stand up for their country and reject the extremist view and their brutal ways (including torture) which are documented in the next section.

Most U.S. media companies have a significant stake in shaping the view of this conflict with the American public. Propaganda by U.S. media companies reported a common theme; advocating American failure and defeat in Iraq. As the conflict raged, the American public was given large doses of negative reporting for four years. During 2007, General Petraeus got approval and implimented the 'Surge' strategy for securing Bagdad. Result, deaths and bombings by militias, rogue bandits and terror cells have significantly decreased. Success was rarely reported including the 'Surge' progress. No longer the chance of a failed state along with an extraordinary decrease in violence, U.S. media reportings on Iraq are now virtually non-existent.

===Al-Qaeda's Use Of Torture===

Key to any insurgency is its ability to have the support of the people, or at least their assent. If the people turn against the insurgency as they now have in Iraq, the insurgents have no basis of operations to hide in and the insurgency crumbles. This is why the insurgents have fled to northern Iraq, as stated above. However, working toward forcing cooperation by the populace, the terrorists in Iraq have used incredible amounts of intimidation - kidnap, torture, threats and murder - to prevent the local Iraqi populace from cooperating with those who will bring them a free and democratic Iraq (the US/Coalition forces and the Democratically aligned Iraqi government forces). From the ordinary Iraqi's point of view, cooperating with those who will bring them freedom can have a high cost. If found out, the media will splash their name all over the papers, making it easy for the terrorists to target them for reprisals. Family members can go missing or they can. They could be tortured or killed.

The great tragedy in the Mainstream Media ([[MSM]]) covering up the inhumane torture methods of the terrorists while trumpeting outrage at the far milder US intimidation techniques (Abu Gharib, etc), is that it hides from public view what risks the Iraqi population must take to cooperate with those who would bring them their freedom. In the article, "Media Totally Ignore Al Qaeda Torture Manual" it says, "Glenn Reynolds this morning pointed out that “Silence is complicity,” while leading the reader to Don Surber’s piece on the subject which went much further in condemning the media boycott (emphasis added): And yet such false stories as the “flushed Koran” got widespread play in the newspapers and on television. We are hearing those awful “Sounds of Silence” that Simon and Garfunkel warned us about. Whether intentional or not, the message is clear: The United States must be above even false reports of torture, while the enemy is allowed to promote eye removal, blowtorching skin and horrors I won’t go into. The handbook shows that the enemy really is perverted; they are sickos who like to torture people. As much as I admire and respect John McCain’s war service, he is wrong when he says our interrogation methods encourage the enemy to torture our people. The enemy was torturing and beheading people well before 9/11."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/13002</ref>

Apart from brief mentions on Fox News and CNN, reports on this issue in the days prior or subsequent have been few. As a result, the populace of the US sees daily news coverage of just how ruthless the insurgents are in their attacks upon the populace in the way of guns and bombs, but are not given substantive evidence of the intimidation (torture) which the Iraqi people face. And it is this torture and intimidation which was the direct cause of slowing US progress, hampering the swift end of the insurgency in Iraq. Thinking that the people of Iraq support the insurgency and are not merely being intimidated by them, the US populace has been impatient for instant progress and their support for the Iraqi people obtaining their freedom from such a ruthless enemy waned. As a result - before the success of the surge, the drop in violence and the standing up of the Iraqis against this intimidation - US support for the war dropped significantly and many discouraged American people turned to supporting the anti-American sentiments of the far left saying America should pull the troops from Iraq.

CNN Headline News anchor Glenn Beck stated "[If the United States were to withdraw, it] would be America’s most shameful act of immorality since slavery". He added that Democrat Congressional war opponents are "just plain stupid" and "can't see the future." Beck stated that if U.S. forces pull out, a "genocide" will take place that will make Darfur "look like a picnic." For support he turned to Van Hipp, Chairman and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army who said, "Unfortunately, Glenn, I believe you`re right. And I tell you, if we surrender now, I believe you will see a humanitarian catastrophe much like or even worse than the situation in Darfur right now, the death count -- and the estimate right now beginning in a few months, they could be looking at 100,000 deaths a month." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/24/gb.01.html </ref>

John McCain, on Feb 15, 2008 delineated his position for the continuance of the war effort stated in this article, "Republican frontrunner John McCain drew sharp distinctions with his Democratic White House rivals over Iraq, saying an untimely US withdrawal would bring about "genocide." "Both Senator Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal. That means chaos. That means genocide," the Arizona senator told CNN's Larry King late Thursday. "That means undoing all the success we've achieved, and Al-Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America. I won't let that happen, as president of the United States."<ref> http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/McCain:_Early_Pullout_Fro/2008/02/15/72973.html
</ref>

==The Surge And Progress In Iraq==



Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamic radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

The increasing pressure from US forces with this Surge strategy has caused Sadr and his commanders flee to Iran as The Guardian reported Feb 15, 07, "Senior commanders of the Mehdi army, the militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have been spirited away to Iran to avoid being targeted in the new security push in Baghdad, a high-level Iraqi official told the Guardian. "Over the last three weeks, they [Iran] have taken away from Baghdad the first and second-tier military leaders of the Mehdi army," he said. The aim of the Iranians was to "prevent the dismantling of the infrastructure of the Shia militias" in the Iraqi capital -- one of the chief aims of the United States-backed security drive. The chief US military spokesperson in Baghdad said the anti-Western cleric had fled to Iran. US forces were tracking him "very closely", he said.
<ref> http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=299085 </ref>

The Surge is showing signs as a solid strategy which is being used to good effect as Al Jazeera reports that the Baathist terrorists have begun to criticize Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in their article Sunni group condemns Iraq al-Qaeda <ref> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A6EC4EAB-854C-4D2F-A922-754648CDED8D.htm </ref> where it states: "An influential Iraqi Sunni armed group has called on al-Qaeda in Iraq to “review” its behaviour in the country. The Islamic Army in Iraq, believed to be the largest group of former Baathists and army officers fighting Iraqi and US forces, called on Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, to take more responsibility for al-Qaeda in Iraq. “Killing Sunnis has become a legitimate target for them, especially rich ones. Either they pay them what they want or they kill them,” a statement from the group said. “They would kill any critic or whoever tries to show them their mistakes.” Sunni Arab officials have also urged what they call “the real resistance” to disown al-Qaeda and engage in talks with the government to end violence which has driven the country closer to an all-out civil war."

Now, the increasing pressure appears to have caused an actual break in relations between terrorist groups as this April 12, 07 article states, quote, "One of Iraq's main armed groups has confirmed a split with al-Qaeda, according to a spokesman for the dissenting organisation. Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened. ".. after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members. They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don't recognise their establishment of an Islamic state - we consider it invalid." The Islamic Army in Iraq is one of several nationalist groups which opposes hitting Iraqi civilians, but it has carried out high-profile attacks against multinational forces. Al-Shammari said they would be willing to deal with the Americans if certain conditions are met. Al-Shammari said that his group didn't consider US forces to be the main danger in Iraq. "There are two occupations: Iranian and American, and the Iranian one is more dangerous than American because Iran considers Iraq as a part of their country." The Islamic Army in Iraq's statement comes after Iraq's president said the presidential office was in contact with five insurgent groups. Jalal Talabani said on Wednesday that the contacts mark an attempt to bring the groups into the mainstream political process. <ref> http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16414 </ref>

Additional progress was detailed in "Corps Commander Highlights Progress in Iraq", Apr 13, 2007, where Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps in Iraq said there has been progress in the security situation in Baghdad. Three of the five promised U.S. brigades are in place in the city, an additional three Iraqi brigade headquarters and 11 additional battalions have moved into Baghdad in support of the operation. Twenty-six joint security stations in Baghdad are manned by Iraqi army, Iraqi police and coalition forces, as are more than 21 combat outposts. "This continuous presence is making the Iraqi people feel safer and has greatly increased the amount of information provided to the Iraqi army, police and coalition forces by the public," Odierno said. Sectarian murders have dropped in Baghdad, and some displaced families are returning to the city. In addition, coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled the number of arms caches found since the beginning of the operation two months ago. Security forces allow citizens to return to a more normal existence. "Across Baghdad, markets are being hardened with checkpoints and barriers, and merchants have returned to sell their produce," he said. "And Iraqis are busy shopping in the markets of Rusafa and Dura, and there are more projects such as these ... that will occur in the near future."

Positive changes are not limited to Baghdad, he said, they are also happening in Anbar province, where coalition and Iraqi security forces are working with local tribal leaders. "The people of al Anbar are fighting back and winning," Odierno said. "They've effectively turned back the tide of al Qaeda, but there will be counterattacks by al Qaeda." The general said there were nine attacks last week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. "During the same week a year ago, there were over 84 attacks," he said. Odierno said he also sees promise in the northern part of Iraq. Coalition forces there have set up 33 U.S. police transition teams to build law enforcement capability in that region. Oil is flowing out of the Bayji refinery thanks to Iraqi security force efforts to protect distribution tankers. Progress continues in the country's south, as well. "In the south, Operation Black Eagle in Diwaniyah, conducted by joint Iraqi and coalition forces, uncovered a headquarters of a rogue element of Jaysh al-Mahdi, with a major weapons cache including materials for IED-making," he said. Even the demonstrations called by radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr on April 9 to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq are a good sign, Odierno said. "This demonstration took place without incident," he said. "It is worth mentioning three points related to this demonstration. First, the government of Iraq allowed the demonstration to take place, unthinkable under the former regime. Second, the demonstrators waved Iraqi flags rather than black flags or pictures of ayatollahs. And third, the demonstrators numbered no more than 15,000, rather than the one million its organizers called for." <ref> http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/Corps_Commander_Highlights_Progress_in_Iraq5809.shtml </ref>

That being said, anti-democratic and sectarian violence in the war, as expected and predicted by the Bush Administration, is continuing: a recent Al-Qaida attack at the Parliamentary cafeteria killed one, and on April 18 2007, a series of car bombs killed 131 Baghdad residents. <ref>US CENTCOM Press Release, [http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Current%20Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=4767 131 Dead, More Than 160 Wounded by Multiple Car Bomb Attacks in Baghdad Multi-National Division], Release Number: 07-01-03P, 4/18/2007. </ref>

In the ABC article, "Al-Qaida claims Iraq parliament attack", the U.S. military revised the death toll sharply downward to one dead in the the parliament suicide bombing. Iraqi officials said the bomber was believed to have been a bodyguard for a Sunni lawmaker who was not among the casualties. Parliament officials said the victim was Mohammed Awad, a moderate Sunni lawmaker. Iraqi lawmakers gathered Friday in a rare - and defiant - session of parliament on the Muslim day of prayer. A red and white bouquet sat in Awad's place in the parliament chamber. Lawmakers took the podium one after another to denounce the bombing. One MP had his arm in sling and a woman lawmaker wore a neck brace. "The more they (terrorists) act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we will offer more martyrs," Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said. "The more they target our unity, the stronger our unity becomes." Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said Friday's session was "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this (political) process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue." <ref> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=5205895 </ref>

At a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (reported Fri Apr 20, 2007), Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi said the Iraqis are making progress in countering the insurgency. "Our need for support is getting less and less each day," al-Obaidi said. Gates said the U.S. troop buildup will continue at least until late summer. "We need some time for things to work," he said. Three of the five extra brigades Bush ordered into Iraq to stem violence have arrived. Officials want the rest in place by June, for a total of 160,000. Soon after that, they will assess how much longer the higher troop level — about 30,000 more than before the buildup — will be needed. Since the troop buildup or "Surge" has not even been completed, it is not surprising that the premature and rash comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying the war was already lost and the troop buildup was not stemming violence in Iraq were rejected by Gates. "I respectfully disagree," Gates said when asked by a reporter about Reid's Thursday remarks. He assured al-Maliki that the U.S. continues to be committed to the Iraqi government and the Baghdad security plan, Gates said.<ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq </ref>

April 20, 2007 - Iraqi President Nouri al Malaki affirmed the indigenous Iraqi Assyrian Christians' right to have a Province of their own, which could be provided for under the Iraqi Constitution. Malaki was addressing questions concerning the minorities, many of whom are in neighboring countries, including an estimated nearly 500,000 Assyrian Christians. Additionally, Malaki said, "I think it is important to let the world know that things in our country are improving dramatically. Our unemployment rate has gone from nearly 70 percent to now under 30 percent. Our most recent growth rate was 3 percent and we have seen, in particular as a result of the recent Baghdad program, a dramatic drop in so-called sectarian violence. What is particularly encouraging to me is the changes we have seen in our security forces and the trust from our people once again. We are finally seeing individual citizens provide information to our forces, which has changed the situation dramatically in rooting out those who are determined to ruin our country."

Malaki stressed three key goals. National Reconciliation, Economic Development and Expanded Security as the way forward. "In spite of much information to the contrary, we are seeing a return to the Iraq we all once knew when we considered ourselves all Iraqis and not belonging to a particular sect or group," he said. "Recently we have brought back large numbers of former members of the Ba'ath Party who were not involved in any problems in the past and this has significantly helped to bring our people together. Economic development is taking place at a good rate. Part of the reason we are here is to encourage even more investment into our country. The monthly income of our people has gone from about $20 a month to now over $200. The dramatic rise in electrical use is one good sign that the economy is taking off. The stores are full." Describing the current military situation as "moving from sectarian to outside interference," Malaki stressed that the so called Baghdad Plan was working. "We are seeing a dramatic drop in the sectarian conflicts and see our major challenge as that from the outside including Al Quaida and remainders of the Ba'athist groups," he said. "In the end we will be able to take care of ourselves. Meanwhile, we need the help of our friends to stand against those who want to harm us."
<ref> http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040107.htm </ref>

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in a recent interview, that the increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in the country had achieved "modest progress" but had also had setbacks such as a rise in suicide bombings and other problems. Petraeus also stated that he was uncertain whether his counterinsurgency strategy would be ultimately succeed, but he stated "We have certainly pulled [Baghdad] neighborhoods back from the brink." Assessing the first two months of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to pacify the capital, senior American commanders -- including Petraeus; Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. forces in the Middle East; Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of military operations in Iraq; and top regional commanders -- see mixed results. Critical now, they said in interviews last week, is for Iraqi leaders to forge the political compromises needed for long-term stability. The deployment of additional troops in Baghdad is only 60 percent complete, and a major concern shared by U.S. military leaders is whether al-Maliki's government is capable of solidifying gains in security as well as making the crucial political compromises needed to achieve peace.
<ref> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70422011</ref>

In an interview of Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak Al-Rubaie aired May 10, 2007, Mr. Rubaie stated, "This is an ideological war. This is a -- a long-term war. This is a war on a global scale. This is a war, if it gets out of control, it will spill over to Europe and America in no time. And it will disturb the oil flow in the Gulf. What happened in Iraq is not something minor and simple, like a coup d'etat or a revolution. What happened is a hurricane. What happened is a huge, major shift, from the old order of 1,000 years of persecution, of dictatorship, of religious supremacy, of prosecuting minorities, to a completely new order, which is called democracy, human rights, accountability, and transparency, and all this. This paradigm shift needs some time. You cannot -- it needs strategic patience. And it needs time. You cannot fit this major shift and the strategic objectives in the election cycle of Washington. You cannot do that."

He went on to note progress and plead for patience, "I think we made a remarkable progress over the last three years. In June 2004, we had only one battalion in the Iraqi army. Now we have 11 divisions. And, in June 2004, we did not have policemen. We did not have national police, local police, an intelligence service. We didn't have anything. Now we have Iraqi security forces, several hundreds of thousands of them. And what we need, we need some refinements, some tuning. We need some training. And we need some equipment and logistical support. We need to build the system within the Iraqi security forces. In a very short period of time, we're going to be self-reliant."

"Take, for example, in Baghdad. Last year, Baghdad was under the command of an American general called General Thurman. And now Baghdad is under the command-and- control of general -- an Iraqi general called General Abboud. And he is commanding and leading and controlling 2.5 Iraqi army division and 11 or 13 Iraqi police, national police, brigades. -- we needed the upsurge, and we need the upsurge to clear some areas of these neighborhoods and to hold them and to build them. When we have this upsurge, let's the best use of it. And let's clear these areas and hold it and build it." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/10/acd.01.html </ref>

May 12, 2007, "Iraq's top Shi'ite party changes platform" gave the stunning news that "Iraq's biggest Shi'ite party, The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), pledged its allegiance to the country's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in a move that would distance it from Shi'ite Iran where it was formed. They said the party had been close to Sistani for some time, but a two-day conference formalised relations with the influential cleric. Officials said the party, which was formed in Iran in the 1980s to oppose Saddam, had previously taken its guidance from the religious establishment of Welayat al Faqih, led by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran. The party then pledged to follow the guidance of the Shi'ite establishment and also said it had introduced significant policy changes and changed its name to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) -- dropping the word "Revolution". <ref> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/tm_headline=iraq-s-top-shi-ite-party-changes-platform&method=full&objectid=19092898&siteid=89520-name_page.html </ref>

This was hailed in the Middle East as a very significant development, stating "The real change of direction and leadership of Iraqi Shiites to Sistani is the greatest victory of the new era of constitutionalism and civility in Iraq. The shifting of Shiite Islam to Najaf, instead of Qum, is a huge change and a direct result of Iraq's freedom that has changed the balance of power in Iraq and Iran. The New York Times-owned Boston Globe reports from Tehran that the influence of Iraqi Shiites is growing even there: "Some Iranians are intrigued by the more freewheeling experiment in Shi'ite empowerment taking place across the border in Iraq, where--Iraq's myriad problems aside--imams can say whatever they want in political Friday sermons, newspapers and satellite channels regularly slam the government, and religious observance is respected and encouraged but not required." <ref> http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2815&cid=2&sid=38 </ref>

CBS Evening News May 29, 2007 presented, "an exclusive interview, Iraq's Prime Minister tells CBS News the security crackdown is working." The network relayed how, “in his first American television interview since the U.S. troop surge began in February, Iraq's Prime Minister told CBS News today the additional forces here have prevented an even greater catastrophe.” Maliki also disclosed that there have been many victories in breaking up al Qaeda and other militant cells. <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13073 </ref>

Then on May 31, 07, the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" added, quote: U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease-fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said. He thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Sunni insurgents." He said the increased effort by commanders to reach out to militants goes hand in hand with reconciliation efforts by the Iraqi government. Odierno noted that efforts to engage tribal leaders in Anbar province — who have been turning against al-Qaida there — has helped draw people to serve in the Iraqi security forces in record numbers and has helped reduce attacks there. For example, the attacks in Anbar in May 2006 totaled 811, while this May they were just barely over 400. Since the beginning of 2007, over 12,000 Iraqi citizens have volunteered for Iraqi security forces in Anbar. In all of 2006, only 1,000 had volunteered. <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

Even Newsweek's June 4 edition on page 33, has a story by Melinda Liu on actual progress in Iraq, headlined: "Gathering the Tribes: U.S. field commanders are finally beginning to tap the traditional networks that helped Saddam stay in power." Liu reported from Ramadi that "Marines and Iraqi tribesmen and police are sitting together, swapping jokes and stories. Some of these Iraqis were probably shooting at Americans less than a year ago. Now they and the Marines are fighting side by side against Al Qaeda." The story also carried a large, bolded quote: 'Last year the Americans were our biggest enemies,' says one cop. 'Now they're how we get what we need.' The captions on the pictures read: PEACE SIGNS: Tribal recruits man a check-point in Ramadi (above); children and others now freely interact with Americans (right). <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13080 </ref>

And on May 31 a report "Sunnis Revolt Against al-Qaida in Iraq" confirmed the trend stating, "U.S. troops battled al-Qaida in west Baghdad on Thursday after Sunni Arab residents challenged the militants and called for American help to end furious gunfire that kept students from final exams and forced people in the neighborhood to huddle indoors. Backed by helicopter gunships, U.S. troops joined the two-day battle in the Amariyah district, according to residents of the Sunni district. Lt. Col. Dale C. Kuehl, commander of 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, who is responsible for the Amariyah area of the capital, confirmed the U.S. military's role in the fighting in the Sunni district. "The events of the past two days are promising developments. Sunni citizens of Amariyah that have been previously terrorized by al-Qaida are now resisting and want them gone. They're tired of the intimidation that included the murder of women," Kuehl said. Casualty figures were not immediately available. But the district councilman said Haji Hameed, the al-Qaida leader in Amariyah, was killed and 45 other fighters were detained. <ref>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/international/i154309D51.DTL </ref>

Meanwhile, U.S. forces handed over responsibility for security in Iraq's three northern provinces to the Kurdish regional government. Seven Iraqi provinces, including Najaf, Muthanna, Dhi Qar and Maysan, now have responsibility for their own security – a third of the total. The United States hopes to add more as Iraqi forces grow in capability. <ref> http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=74626 </ref>

March 2008 - 62% of Iraqis now say they want the US troops to stay in their country.. and a full 55% say their lives are going well. 

Marking the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, ABC's anchor Charles Gibson on World News Monday March 18, 2008 explained “we have polled inside Iraq and there is some good news.” Specifically, “today, 55 percent of Iraqi say their lives are going well. Last summer that number was 39 percent.” From Iraq, Terry McCarthy reported, "As our poll takers spread across the country they found that for the first time in three years, people were more worried about economic and social problems than violence. And almost half think their country will be better off in a year -- double the number six months ago. In Dora, in southern Baghdad, we found these kids playing on the street. A year ago, they would haven't dared to come outside.... McCarthy also noted in a telling reality check, only 38 percent want U.S. troops to leave now, afraid that the gains in security might be reversed.” This obviously means that 62 percent of the Iraqis polled want US troops to stay in their country until they are certain the gains in security and stability will not be reversed. “Even Fallujah has turned around,” McCarthy learned, “as the local population has largely abandoned the insurgency and now they're focusing on rebuilding the city from the ruins of war,” though tough tasks remain with most complaining about electrical shortages and poor health care services. <ref> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/18/abc-finds-optimistic-iraqis-kids-playing-safely-street </ref>

==Results of the Surge on casualties and terrorist attacks==

The surge has resulted in a 60% reduction in terrorist attacks and casualities since June of 2007 to the present.<ref>http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48515</ref>

==Iraq Strategy in Relation to the Global War on Terrorism==

As reported in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism <ref>http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/</ref> released April 30, 2007, there are steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe. Though terrorism has increased markedly in Iraq, aside from the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan according to State), the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is down from a year ago by over 300 incidents. In other words, the Bush administration's idea that making Iraq the "central front in the war on terror" seems to be working. According to the State report, terrorism in South Asia is down by 10 percent from a year ago. In Europe, it's down 18 percent. In Central and South America, terrorism-related deaths are down 54 percent. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/12431 </ref>

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war. But recently in June 2008, <ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5314609 The USA Military found 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium in Iraq]</ref> The USA Military found 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium and parts to make nuclear weapons in Tuwaitha 12 miles south of Baghdad, as proof that George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the CIA were right about Saddam owning yellow cake uranium that was going to be used to make weapons of mass destruction and also was a violation of the US resolution after the Gulf War that said Saddam shouldn't own any yellow cake uranium, and justifies the invasion of Iraq.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> However, there is no way to obtain hard physical evidence to back up their assertions due to the fact that Syria will not allow such intrusive inspection and searching in their country. Intelligence sources do, however, say that General Al-Tikriti is a credible witness as is the pilot who also testified that he flew such missions.

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a nuclear weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

The UK government Feb 18, 2008 released an early draft of its controversial dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, after losing a bid to keep it secret. The government has always maintained Williams' paper was not relevant as the final dossier was the work of its intelligence agencies. The dossier, quote: "concentrates on allegations that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's regime had acquired uranium, retained the ability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons and was developing long-range missiles." Even the UK's opposition Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Edward Davey conceded that, "The core analysis of the threat allegedly posed by Iraq is the same in both documents." <ref> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080218/world/britain_iraq_war_dossier_politics_intelligence_1 </ref>

These allegations are not in dispute, as the quoted detractors in the article make clear when it says of them, "Campaigners have been pushing for it to be made public, claiming it could show that the final dossier -- in which it was claimed Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes -- was the work of government "spin doctors"."

Apart from whether Iraq could have launched WMD in that time frame, the core analysis shows ample reason and justification for beginning Operation Iraqi Freedom - including weapons grade uranium, the ability to launch long-range missiles at Western allies and the ability to manufacture at will chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was a WMD threat with malicious intent and although how close to launching such attacks he was remains in question, the fact he was one year from aquiring the bomb and was calling for attacks and agents to be in place (in the West) while developing missiles to deliver these weapons against allied Western targets, figured strongly in the case for war.

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. Another dozen were found later in June. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> This finding was updated 2 days later as testing found that all sixteen rockets had initially showed traces of sarin, but were now "all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref> The article went on to state, "In January 2003, U.N. inspectors discovered a dozen old 122-millimeter rockets that chief inspector Hans Blix described at the time as "designed to carry chemical weapons." Iraq later turned up several more, and all were destroyed. Blix later said he was not sure whether Iraq mentioned them in the 12,000-page weapons declaration it submitted in December 2002.

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

In the article The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself.<ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref>

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref>

SEE: The Saddam Connection To Osama by ABC News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFWCg1BdRg

Foxnews reported March 23, 2008 that "Saddam Hussein’s Son Plotted London Assassination Attack", stating that "Saddam Hussein's son Uday planned to carry out an attack in London, England to assassinate the leader of an Iraqi opposition group in April 2000." Based on seized documents, Uday Hussein's elite paramilitary group — the Fedayeen — were given orders "to carry out assassinations and bombings in London, the Times reported."

Further, "While the study showed no link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda, it does detail the former Iraq dictator's support for Middle Eastern terror groups, including those linked to Al Qaeda. Also in the report are memos showing Uday ordered officials to “start planning special operations in the centres of the traitors’ symbols in the fields of London / Iran / self-ruled areas [Kurdish northern Iraq]”, it was reported." <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340745,00.html </ref>

===Summary update on WMD and Iraq/terrorist/Al Qaeda connections NOT being falsified===

The Los Angeles Times article, "Bush never lied to us about Iraq - The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception." By James Kirchick, June 16, 2008, a great deal of summary about these two previous sections on WMD and links to the Al Qaeda are given. The article states that, "Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of the charge.. that the Bush administration deceived the American people. Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods." <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story </ref>

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." 

Even concerning the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, 2008, quote, "what did this report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program."

The article contends that if Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA. It then asserts, "This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers." <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story </ref>

Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt also brought out what Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee found in their June 5, 2008 report, saying, quote:
<ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html </ref>

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into [Sen. Jay] Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." 

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." 

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

Hiatt then noted what the Republican part of the report said, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence." 

<ref> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/06/09/bush-lied-argument-doesnt-match-facts-democrats-say </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Regime Intent===

The Iraqi Survey Group in interrogations of Ba'athist officials from the leadership of the intelligence and security services, and Qusay’s inner circle, undertook interviews of Ba'athists in custody. Some detainees’ statements were made to minimize their culpability leading to potential prosecution. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and were not willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the tendency to place blame or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fled the country, or providing debriefers with previously known information. Some former high ranking officials, such as ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid Al Tikriti (Chemical ‘Ali), never gave substantial information, despite speaking colorfully and at length. Some obstructed all attempts to elicit information on WMD and illicit activities of the former Regime. Others, however, were keen to help clarify every issue, sometimes to the point of self-incrimination.

The ISG's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Saddam and many Iraqis regarded chemical weapons as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the [[Iran-Iraq war]]— and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. After 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital, or the know-how that was developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Saddam indicated that he would develop the weapons necessary to counter any Iranian threat. Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program workers with know-how, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base. The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals. The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure.

ISG judged, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months. A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dualuse process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. Uday — head of the Fedayeen Saddam — attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories of which were never declared to the UN. The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime. In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose. At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years” agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes. ISG judged that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Threat Level Concern===

It is worth noting the following concerning a current controversy about the level of threat Saddam posed. If you consider the terrorists as various minority factions all working toward the same goal, as stated by Mr. Kraft on this page when he says, "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so." It doesn't matter which of these factions would have been used to specifically target the civilized world in a nuclear or biological/chemical attack. Although recently the extent of Saddam's ties to one specific group (the Al-Qaeda terrorists) has been questioned and a recent article stated that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, the same article goes on to say concerning Al-Qaeda that "it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html </ref> Therefore, it is known that Saddam had forged long term relationships with known terrorist GROUPS (plural) and so it was not that there was no threat from any terrorists groups, just that the threat would have come from those OTHER terrorists as the threat to the collective security of the civilized world if the US hadn't taken out Saddam.

It also remains to be seen if the ties with Al-Qaeda would have remained "limited" if that group had stepped up and volunteered to take the completed nuclear weapons from Saddam (which he would have had within a year according to The New York Times - see the WMD section, this page) into Washington and detonate them using sophisticated and existing sleeper cell suicide bombers as Saddam was contemplating. It appears likely that Saddam would have listened and handed them his stocks of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by his statements (see Mr. Tierney's translation on this page). From his past actions, Saddam was an equal opportunity employer for all the terrorist groups.. including those they admit in this report with whom he had "long-term relationships." As Mr. Kraft observes, it is many "barbarians" at our gates with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for the first time, not only one group (Al-Qaeda.) It is global in scope, hence the reason for calling this a "Global War on Terror" not a "War on Terror in Iraq." As such, it is a fight for world supremacy, and the civilized world would do well not to ignore or minimize what the civilized world is fighting over.

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

In the exhaustive search for WMDs in Iraq, CNN has left all stones unturned - or have they? These are the words right out of the mouth of CNN reporter Jane Arraf <ref> http://www.cjr.org/iraq/chapt1.html </ref>, quote: "And if you had a bureau there, like we did, and it was a known bureau and a known company like CNN was, it was a beacon for everybody. It was a beacon for Iraqis who believed they had stories. Iraqis would show up, there would be Iraqis lined up outside the door. There... would be the Iraqis who told you they had nuclear documents in their basement and would you like to come and look [laughter]. You know, there was almost that pang when you turned somebody away, [you were] thinking, “Damn, maybe this guy really does have nuclear weapons in his basement, but I don’t have time.” So you never really knew."

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref> A 2008 study estimated that the Iraq War cost the United States $12 billion a month.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_costs;_ylt=ApGg20eC4zcjyEaIxwc8CC6s0NUE Studies: Iraq costs US $12 billion per month]</ref> This makes the Iraq war the most expensive endeavor in U.S. history.

==Casualties==

Former U.S. Attorney General in the [[Johnson Administration]], [[Ramsey Clark]], wrote the UN Security Council on 29 July 29 2002 claiming UN sanctions , "are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people" <ref>[http://www.radioislam.org/bush/act.htm Letter from Ramsey Clark to the U.N. Security Council members], 29 July 29 2002.</ref> A 1999 [[UNICEF]] Report stated that there were, at that time, 500,000 deaths of children under the age of five probably attributable to the U.N. sanctions. <ref>[http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm Iraq Surveys Show Humanitarian Emergency], (August 12, 1999).</ref>

===Coalition Troops===

According to the US Department of Defense, over 4,100 U.S. and 300 troops from coalition countries have died in the war. Over 30,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref> Despite a dramatic decrease in violence in the latter half of the year, 2007 was the worst year in Iraq in terms of U.S. casualties. Over 900 American troops died or went [[missing in action]] during the year.<ref>[www.icasualties.org Iraq War casualties]</ref>

===Enemy Casualties===

in March, 2007, Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton, a military historian, calculated that, "a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end. This is an entire generation of jihadists, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society." <ref> http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M </ref>

===Civilian Casualties===

Estimates of civilian casualties vary. According to Fox News, March 20, 2007, over 54,000 civilians have been killed in the war. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259875,00.html</ref> However, due to suicide bombings and other such activity, the fatalities caused by US/Coalition forces in action was only 31 percent of the total number given according to CNN's report October 2006, <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ </ref> down from 32 percent quoted by this Boston Globe report <ref> http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jackson191205.htm </ref> dated December 19, 2005. In the Fox News study, that would mean 16,740 of the 54,000 casualties.
On November 11, 2006, Iraqi Health Minister Ali al-Shamari estimated that between 100,000 and 150,000 civilians had been killed during the war.<ref>[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/11/2003335773 Iraq death toll may go as high as 150,000]</ref> A 2008 estimate by the [[World Health Organization]] placed the civilian death toll at 151,000.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080110/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_survey_dc 151,000 Iraqis killed since U.S.-led invasion: WHO]</ref>

==Summary of Justifications for the Iraq War Taken From This Entry==

If President Bush had not removed Saddam Hussein we now know that, QUOTE: The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a nuclear weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref> (end quote)

And we know that Saddam was discussing using WMD on Washington, DC (remember/keep-in-mind his soon nuclear capability from the last paragraph), QUOTE: In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref> (end quote)

President Bush's decision to depose Saddam Hussein meant that this plan Saddam was discussing in these tapes here - or with the atomic nuclear capacity he was to possess within a year - never came into execution. It is credible that literally MILLIONS of Americans are alive today because Saddam was stopped before he had the ability to put his plans into action. We know he had ties to terrorists, including, QUOTE:

In the article "The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden" dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself. <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq?" The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr Bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref> (end quote)

To say that the US should never have deposed Saddam when he posed such a threat is irresponsible. The detractors from the Iraq War today would presently be decrying the dead and dying in America and saying President Bush should have gone to war to prevent such devastating losses, had he refrained from engaging in the Iraq War. We know that since then Bin Laden has worked toward attacking the US on his own, without the assistance of Saddam. QUOTE:

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref> (end quote)

The act of war on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein was justified to protect the Homeland of America from Saddam's planned and certain future catastrophic attack. The red herring <ref> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html </ref> of not finding the WMD in Saddam's backyard does not diminish the threat to the Homeland of America because Saddam had proven his willingness to use such WMD on the Kurdish people in Iraq <ref> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article351987.ece
</ref> and he would have had the atom bomb within a year by expert opinion. To expect that he would not have put into execution his stated aims against America is to act like an ostrich and put one's head in the sand.

If the atomic threat is not sufficient, under "regime intent", above, the Iraqi Survey Group's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. The section on The Duelfer Report points out that there were reference strains of biological agents which were found and evidence of the ability to quickly start chemical and biological warfare production, QUOTE: Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents (end quote)

Saddam's son in law tells Saddam, quote: In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref> (end quote)
Also, there is credible testimony that Saddam had the weapons and moved them, quote: Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> (end quote)

There are those who think that attacks upon America must actually happen in order to prove that these things exist or pose an imminent threat. The Iraq War was a preventative war and as such its merit relies on the mental ability of the public to perceive future threats and act in keeping with that threat and not ignore it - just as a person must swerve their car in the face of oncoming traffic in order to avoid an accident. As with this example, it does little good to discuss the merits of whether there would have been a crash or not after the fact since the evidence of past destruction which was avoided will never be obtainable.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.
*[http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx CENTCOM] Home page.

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category: United States of America]]

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2008-07-06T16:57:31Z

Orion Blastar: /* Weapons of Mass Destruction */

'''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' is the largest of several active fronts in the ongoing [[War on Terrorism]]. Other fronts include [[Afghanistan]], [[Philippines]], and the [[Horn of Africa]]. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 3 March 2003 with the removal of the [[Ba'athist]] regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] by a "Coalition of the Willing" led by the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>. An interim government, Constitutional Assembly, and later an elected Parliament and Executive have assumed authority, however sectarian insurgent violence has hindered stability and reconstruction efforts by US contractors and the new government. Iraq's new Constitution strictly limits the emergency powers of the Executive in dealing with civil strife--a post Saddam democratic reform.

President [[George W. Bush]] and Senator [[John McCain]] are among the strongest proponents of Operation Iraq Freedom, and support continuing it until a sustained Democracy is in place that can repel terrorism on its own.

==Background To Regime Change==

In the post-[[9/11]] analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide [[jihad]]ists, the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason.<ref>Chris Suellentrop, [http://slate.msn.com/id/1008414/ Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?], Slate, Oct. 9, 2001.</ref><ref>Norman Bauman, [http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/wtc.htm Why they hate us: "Stopping cancer treatments will not topple a dictatorship"], 14 October 2001.</ref><ref>Michael Rubin, [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm Sanctions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?], Middle East review of International Affairs, Volume 5, No. 4 - December 2001.</ref><ref>Matt Welch, [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?], Reason Magazine, March 2002.</ref><ref>Alan W. Dowd, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_33/ai_109580224 Thirteen Years of Causes and Consequences for the Was in Iraq], Parameters, Autumn, 2003.[http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_epy/pi_epy_02.html]</ref> After the Gulf War of 1991 the United States kept troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against an Iraqi invasion of the Kingdom. In the findings of the the 9/11 Commission Report for example, in a section entitled, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'', referring to Osama bin Laden's motivations for his Declaration of War and attack on the United States, the Commission found the following:
:He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.<ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'']</ref>

Saddam had taken advantage of corruption in both the [[United Nations]] Secretariat and [[Security Council]] to revive the Iraqi economy after the 1991 [[Gulf War]] through the [[Oil for Food]] program, nevertheless few of the intended beneficiaries of these alleged UN humanitarian efforts saw the intended relief. Meanwhile, Saddam kept intact the "intellectual capital" or "know-how" to revive [[weapons of mass destruction]] (WMD) programs which were credited with ensuring the survival of the Ba'athist regime in both the 1980-1988 War with Iran, and preventing a US overthrow of the regime in 1991. As the 90s progressed and the millennium changed, Saddam's top priority was ending the sanctions, and then a full resumption of operational WMD programs. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Regime Strategic Intent], Duelfer Report, 2004.</ref>
[[Image:Dynamicduo.JPG|right|thumb|300px|Sen. Hillary Clinton was a leading spokesperson in the bipartisan decision to commit troops to Iraq.]]
Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]], addressing a gathering of the radical anti-war group [[Code Pink]] spoke from her own knowledge and experience,
{{Cquote|'''There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. …For now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children.''' <ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref> }}

Eygptian President [[Hosni Mubarek]] and Libyan [[Socialist]] General Secretary [[Muammar Gaddafi]] in negotiations with [[Saddam Hussein]] relayed a message through Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] and Spanish President [[Jose Maria Aznar]] to UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] and US President [[George W. Bush]] that Saddam would be willing to avoid removal by force and voluntarily go into exile, provided Saddam was allowed to take $1 billion dollars and "all the information he wants about [[weapons of mass destruction]]." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/saddam_risked_his_life_for_wmd_1.asp Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets], ''WeeklyStandard.com. Spetember 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639 Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion], ''Editor & Publisher'', September 26, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion], He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms, By Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz, ''[[Washington Post]], September 27, 2007; Page A17.</ref><ref>[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref> For 12 years, the international community gave Saddam chance after chance, Saddam defied it all including WMD declarations. Dozens of [[UN]] resolutions and mandated sanctions failed to persuade Saddam's grip on power. In 1998, the course for present day Iraq began in earnest. President Clinton signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act. This act declares that it should be the policy of the [[United States]] to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

==Arguments For Regime Change==

The concern which has led to this front on the War on Terror was summarized by Raymond S. Kraft in his "Historical Review of the Iraq Situation" <ref> http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/historical_revi.html </ref> He states, quote: "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The militant Muslim Jihadis believe that a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge." (end of quote)

What the West decided to do was help the Reformation side win. To do that the West had to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. The battle had to happen somewhere, and since the West could not fight everywhere at once, the West chose to create a focal point for the battle, in Iraq. Mr Kraft went on to summarize what the West did and is doing which is important in Iraq, quote:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. This has focused the battle. The ones killed there won't have to be killed here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia. The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism. (end of quote)

Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] said in a floor speech on October 10, 2002,

{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. <ref>[http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq], United States Senate, October 10, 2002. </ref>}}

==Liberation From Ba'athist Tyranny==
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk [[helicopter]] for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]

After the decapitation of the Ba'athist leadership from the military under its command in April 2003, President Bush said in his address:
*Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html]

Other comments from President Bush's May 1, 2003 speech <ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html </ref> show that the context of these victory comments include warnings to Americans of an ongoing struggle to establish Iraqi democracy and counter the threat of terrorism. Quotes, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/12386 </ref>

Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> From 2004 to before the surge, the unceasing violence by the insurgents had caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref> [http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
Since the surge, this has ceased as 60-80% of the violence has been stopped. On Sat Feb 16, 2008 reuters reported, "Attacks by insurgents and rival sectarian militias have fallen up to 80 percent in Baghdad. The U.S. military says attacks have fallen across Iraq by 60 percent since June on the back of security clampdowns and the deployment of 30,000 extra American troops." <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/ts_nm/iraq_dc </ref>
[[Image:Bagpipe.jpg|left|thumb|400px|Proposed Baghdad reconstruction Plan]]
2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 showed that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis preferred the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security situation and a lack of public services. It also revealed that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis did not believe they were embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still wanted to see a united Iraq under a central national government. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf PDF Iraq Poll], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>and found that 56 percent of Iraqis did not believe there was a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent did not believe they were in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece Iraqis: life is getting better], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” <ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

On January 21, 2008 there was a report about a cache of documents discovered in the fall of 2007 by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar. It gave the individual records of 606 foreign fighers who entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007 saying, "Based on the Sinjar records, U.S. military officials in Iraq said they now think that nine out of 10 suicide bombers have been foreigners, compared with earlier estimates of 75 percent. Similarly, they assess that 90 percent of foreign fighters entering Iraq during the one-year period ending in August came via Syria, a greater proportion than previously believed. Although Saudi Arabia was by far the most common country of origin of foreign fighters, with about 40 percent of the total, a surprising share -- 19 percent -- came from Libya. Overall, about 40 percent were North African." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/20/AR2008012002609.html </ref> This certainly justifies these poll results where Iraqis stated that many of the attacks against the Iraqi populace are the work of foreign forces rather than out of the Iraqi population (civil war).

==Insurgency==
Since the removal of Saddam, Iraq has seen the rise of sectarian violence between [[Sunni]] Muslims and [[Shia]] Muslims. To many Sunnis, the US has been viewed suspiciously because it supports the democratically elected Shia majority rule. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilege of doing so. There are also some intractable Sunni whose interpretation of Muslim law says that the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation.

The Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have had militant factions who have not only attacked Sunni Muslims but have also attacked American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the democratically elected Shia from Sunni attacks. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule instead of seeking unity and a cohesive and representatively fair national political structure, which has hampered political progress and reconciliation efforts. <ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

However, as reported on May 31, 07, in the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]] as well as Sunni insurgents." <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

With 80% of the violence ended, the united government of Iraq will be much more able to fight the remaining intractable 20% of fighters left - including the foreign and imported terrorist entity Al-Qaeda with its recruits.

===Propaganda===

Since the invasion in 2003, both Shiite and Sunni clerics have been repeating over and over again that the Americans and their mostly "[[Christian]]" allies are in Iraq to destroy [[Islam]] in its cultural heartland as well as to steal the country’s oil. The clerics dismiss all talk of [[democracy]] and [[human rights]] by the invaders as mere hypocrisy--except for [[women’s rights]], which are promoted in earnest, the clerics say, to induce Iraqi daughters and wives to dishonor their families by aping the shameless disobedience of Western women.

At first, a majority of Iraqis believed these religious leaders. The alternative was difficult for them to believe--that foreigners have been unselfishly expending their own blood and treasure to help them. Some polls and incidents demonstrate to insurgents that Americans are out to rob Muslim Iraqis not only of their territory and oil, but also of their religion and even their family honor. The most visible effects of these sentiments were the deadly attacks, the aiding and abetting of such attacks, and celebration by impromptu crowds of spectators. When the victims are members of the Iraqi police or National Guard, bystanders, family members, and local clerics routinely accused the Americans of being the attackers--usually by missile strikes that cleverly simulate car-bombs. As to why the Americans would want to kill Iraqis they are themselves recruiting, training, and paying, no explanation was offered, because no obligation was felt to unravel each and every sub-plot of the dark "Christian conspiracy" against Iraq, the Arab world, and Islam. <ref>Luttwak Testimony, [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Committee on Foreign Relations,]U.S. Senate, pgs. 6-7.</ref>

One key to the success which has now spread all across Iraq and caused a drop in violence in Iraq by 60-80% <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/ts_nm/iraq_dc </ref> is the willingness of the Sunnis to take back their country from the insurgent violence. In an article February 10, 2008 called, "U.S. Military Says Seized Docs Show Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Weakened" it states, "A diary and another document seized during U.S. raids show some Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders fear the terror group is crumbling, with many fighters defecting to American-backed neighborhood groups."

The reason for this shift, "the author describes an Al Qaeda in crisis, with citizens growing weary of militants' presence and foreign fighters too eager to participate in suicide missions rather than continuing to fight, "We lost cities and afterward, villages... We find ourselves in a wasteland desert," Smith quoted the document as saying. The memo — believed to have been written in summer 2007 — cites militants' increasing difficulty in moving around and transporting weapons and suicide belts because of better equipped Iraqi police and more watchful citizens, Smith said."

The populace of Iraq has rejected the extremist viewpoint and are now willing to stand up and do what it takes to get peace in the country for themselves and their future. The article further states, "The diary, seized by U.S. troops south of Balad, was written in autumn 2007 by Abu Tariq, who refers to himself as sector leader for al-Qaida in Iraq, Smith said. Tariq wrote that he was once in charge of 600 fighters, but only 20 were left "after the tribes changed course" — a reference to how many Sunni tribesmen have switched sides to fight alongside the Americans, Smith said. The new organizations, called awakening councils or neighborhood watch groups, were key to helping push Al Qaeda in Iraq out of Anbar province, once one of the country's most violent. The terror network's top leaders are now based somewhere in northern Iraq, Smith said, having moved out of Anbar and into Diyala province last year.<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330235,00.html </ref>

The indomitable spirit of the Iraqis has been put to the test and is prevailing against their enemies as they stand up for their country and reject the extremist view and their brutal ways (including torture) which are documented in the next section.

Most U.S. media companies have a significant stake in shaping the view of this conflict with the American public. Propaganda by U.S. media companies reported a common theme; advocating American failure and defeat in Iraq. As the conflict raged, the American public was given large doses of negative reporting for four years. During 2007, General Petraeus got approval and implimented the 'Surge' strategy for securing Bagdad. Result, deaths and bombings by militias, rogue bandits and terror cells have significantly decreased. Success was rarely reported including the 'Surge' progress. No longer the chance of a failed state along with an extraordinary decrease in violence, U.S. media reportings on Iraq are now virtually non-existent.

===Al-Qaeda's Use Of Torture===

Key to any insurgency is its ability to have the support of the people, or at least their assent. If the people turn against the insurgency as they now have in Iraq, the insurgents have no basis of operations to hide in and the insurgency crumbles. This is why the insurgents have fled to northern Iraq, as stated above. However, working toward forcing cooperation by the populace, the terrorists in Iraq have used incredible amounts of intimidation - kidnap, torture, threats and murder - to prevent the local Iraqi populace from cooperating with those who will bring them a free and democratic Iraq (the US/Coalition forces and the Democratically aligned Iraqi government forces). From the ordinary Iraqi's point of view, cooperating with those who will bring them freedom can have a high cost. If found out, the media will splash their name all over the papers, making it easy for the terrorists to target them for reprisals. Family members can go missing or they can. They could be tortured or killed.

The great tragedy in the Mainstream Media ([[MSM]]) covering up the inhumane torture methods of the terrorists while trumpeting outrage at the far milder US intimidation techniques (Abu Gharib, etc), is that it hides from public view what risks the Iraqi population must take to cooperate with those who would bring them their freedom. In the article, "Media Totally Ignore Al Qaeda Torture Manual" it says, "Glenn Reynolds this morning pointed out that “Silence is complicity,” while leading the reader to Don Surber’s piece on the subject which went much further in condemning the media boycott (emphasis added): And yet such false stories as the “flushed Koran” got widespread play in the newspapers and on television. We are hearing those awful “Sounds of Silence” that Simon and Garfunkel warned us about. Whether intentional or not, the message is clear: The United States must be above even false reports of torture, while the enemy is allowed to promote eye removal, blowtorching skin and horrors I won’t go into. The handbook shows that the enemy really is perverted; they are sickos who like to torture people. As much as I admire and respect John McCain’s war service, he is wrong when he says our interrogation methods encourage the enemy to torture our people. The enemy was torturing and beheading people well before 9/11."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/13002</ref>

Apart from brief mentions on Fox News and CNN, reports on this issue in the days prior or subsequent have been few. As a result, the populace of the US sees daily news coverage of just how ruthless the insurgents are in their attacks upon the populace in the way of guns and bombs, but are not given substantive evidence of the intimidation (torture) which the Iraqi people face. And it is this torture and intimidation which was the direct cause of slowing US progress, hampering the swift end of the insurgency in Iraq. Thinking that the people of Iraq support the insurgency and are not merely being intimidated by them, the US populace has been impatient for instant progress and their support for the Iraqi people obtaining their freedom from such a ruthless enemy waned. As a result - before the success of the surge, the drop in violence and the standing up of the Iraqis against this intimidation - US support for the war dropped significantly and many discouraged American people turned to supporting the anti-American sentiments of the far left saying America should pull the troops from Iraq.

CNN Headline News anchor Glenn Beck stated "[If the United States were to withdraw, it] would be America’s most shameful act of immorality since slavery". He added that Democrat Congressional war opponents are "just plain stupid" and "can't see the future." Beck stated that if U.S. forces pull out, a "genocide" will take place that will make Darfur "look like a picnic." For support he turned to Van Hipp, Chairman and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army who said, "Unfortunately, Glenn, I believe you`re right. And I tell you, if we surrender now, I believe you will see a humanitarian catastrophe much like or even worse than the situation in Darfur right now, the death count -- and the estimate right now beginning in a few months, they could be looking at 100,000 deaths a month." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/24/gb.01.html </ref>

John McCain, on Feb 15, 2008 delineated his position for the continuance of the war effort stated in this article, "Republican frontrunner John McCain drew sharp distinctions with his Democratic White House rivals over Iraq, saying an untimely US withdrawal would bring about "genocide." "Both Senator Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal. That means chaos. That means genocide," the Arizona senator told CNN's Larry King late Thursday. "That means undoing all the success we've achieved, and Al-Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America. I won't let that happen, as president of the United States."<ref> http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/McCain:_Early_Pullout_Fro/2008/02/15/72973.html
</ref>

==The Surge And Progress In Iraq==



Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamic radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

The increasing pressure from US forces with this Surge strategy has caused Sadr and his commanders flee to Iran as The Guardian reported Feb 15, 07, "Senior commanders of the Mehdi army, the militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have been spirited away to Iran to avoid being targeted in the new security push in Baghdad, a high-level Iraqi official told the Guardian. "Over the last three weeks, they [Iran] have taken away from Baghdad the first and second-tier military leaders of the Mehdi army," he said. The aim of the Iranians was to "prevent the dismantling of the infrastructure of the Shia militias" in the Iraqi capital -- one of the chief aims of the United States-backed security drive. The chief US military spokesperson in Baghdad said the anti-Western cleric had fled to Iran. US forces were tracking him "very closely", he said.
<ref> http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=299085 </ref>

The Surge is showing signs as a solid strategy which is being used to good effect as Al Jazeera reports that the Baathist terrorists have begun to criticize Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in their article Sunni group condemns Iraq al-Qaeda <ref> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A6EC4EAB-854C-4D2F-A922-754648CDED8D.htm </ref> where it states: "An influential Iraqi Sunni armed group has called on al-Qaeda in Iraq to “review” its behaviour in the country. The Islamic Army in Iraq, believed to be the largest group of former Baathists and army officers fighting Iraqi and US forces, called on Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, to take more responsibility for al-Qaeda in Iraq. “Killing Sunnis has become a legitimate target for them, especially rich ones. Either they pay them what they want or they kill them,” a statement from the group said. “They would kill any critic or whoever tries to show them their mistakes.” Sunni Arab officials have also urged what they call “the real resistance” to disown al-Qaeda and engage in talks with the government to end violence which has driven the country closer to an all-out civil war."

Now, the increasing pressure appears to have caused an actual break in relations between terrorist groups as this April 12, 07 article states, quote, "One of Iraq's main armed groups has confirmed a split with al-Qaeda, according to a spokesman for the dissenting organisation. Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened. ".. after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members. They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don't recognise their establishment of an Islamic state - we consider it invalid." The Islamic Army in Iraq is one of several nationalist groups which opposes hitting Iraqi civilians, but it has carried out high-profile attacks against multinational forces. Al-Shammari said they would be willing to deal with the Americans if certain conditions are met. Al-Shammari said that his group didn't consider US forces to be the main danger in Iraq. "There are two occupations: Iranian and American, and the Iranian one is more dangerous than American because Iran considers Iraq as a part of their country." The Islamic Army in Iraq's statement comes after Iraq's president said the presidential office was in contact with five insurgent groups. Jalal Talabani said on Wednesday that the contacts mark an attempt to bring the groups into the mainstream political process. <ref> http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16414 </ref>

Additional progress was detailed in "Corps Commander Highlights Progress in Iraq", Apr 13, 2007, where Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps in Iraq said there has been progress in the security situation in Baghdad. Three of the five promised U.S. brigades are in place in the city, an additional three Iraqi brigade headquarters and 11 additional battalions have moved into Baghdad in support of the operation. Twenty-six joint security stations in Baghdad are manned by Iraqi army, Iraqi police and coalition forces, as are more than 21 combat outposts. "This continuous presence is making the Iraqi people feel safer and has greatly increased the amount of information provided to the Iraqi army, police and coalition forces by the public," Odierno said. Sectarian murders have dropped in Baghdad, and some displaced families are returning to the city. In addition, coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled the number of arms caches found since the beginning of the operation two months ago. Security forces allow citizens to return to a more normal existence. "Across Baghdad, markets are being hardened with checkpoints and barriers, and merchants have returned to sell their produce," he said. "And Iraqis are busy shopping in the markets of Rusafa and Dura, and there are more projects such as these ... that will occur in the near future."

Positive changes are not limited to Baghdad, he said, they are also happening in Anbar province, where coalition and Iraqi security forces are working with local tribal leaders. "The people of al Anbar are fighting back and winning," Odierno said. "They've effectively turned back the tide of al Qaeda, but there will be counterattacks by al Qaeda." The general said there were nine attacks last week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. "During the same week a year ago, there were over 84 attacks," he said. Odierno said he also sees promise in the northern part of Iraq. Coalition forces there have set up 33 U.S. police transition teams to build law enforcement capability in that region. Oil is flowing out of the Bayji refinery thanks to Iraqi security force efforts to protect distribution tankers. Progress continues in the country's south, as well. "In the south, Operation Black Eagle in Diwaniyah, conducted by joint Iraqi and coalition forces, uncovered a headquarters of a rogue element of Jaysh al-Mahdi, with a major weapons cache including materials for IED-making," he said. Even the demonstrations called by radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr on April 9 to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq are a good sign, Odierno said. "This demonstration took place without incident," he said. "It is worth mentioning three points related to this demonstration. First, the government of Iraq allowed the demonstration to take place, unthinkable under the former regime. Second, the demonstrators waved Iraqi flags rather than black flags or pictures of ayatollahs. And third, the demonstrators numbered no more than 15,000, rather than the one million its organizers called for." <ref> http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/Corps_Commander_Highlights_Progress_in_Iraq5809.shtml </ref>

That being said, anti-democratic and sectarian violence in the war, as expected and predicted by the Bush Administration, is continuing: a recent Al-Qaida attack at the Parliamentary cafeteria killed one, and on April 18 2007, a series of car bombs killed 131 Baghdad residents. <ref>US CENTCOM Press Release, [http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Current%20Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=4767 131 Dead, More Than 160 Wounded by Multiple Car Bomb Attacks in Baghdad Multi-National Division], Release Number: 07-01-03P, 4/18/2007. </ref>

In the ABC article, "Al-Qaida claims Iraq parliament attack", the U.S. military revised the death toll sharply downward to one dead in the the parliament suicide bombing. Iraqi officials said the bomber was believed to have been a bodyguard for a Sunni lawmaker who was not among the casualties. Parliament officials said the victim was Mohammed Awad, a moderate Sunni lawmaker. Iraqi lawmakers gathered Friday in a rare - and defiant - session of parliament on the Muslim day of prayer. A red and white bouquet sat in Awad's place in the parliament chamber. Lawmakers took the podium one after another to denounce the bombing. One MP had his arm in sling and a woman lawmaker wore a neck brace. "The more they (terrorists) act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we will offer more martyrs," Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said. "The more they target our unity, the stronger our unity becomes." Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said Friday's session was "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this (political) process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue." <ref> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=5205895 </ref>

At a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (reported Fri Apr 20, 2007), Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi said the Iraqis are making progress in countering the insurgency. "Our need for support is getting less and less each day," al-Obaidi said. Gates said the U.S. troop buildup will continue at least until late summer. "We need some time for things to work," he said. Three of the five extra brigades Bush ordered into Iraq to stem violence have arrived. Officials want the rest in place by June, for a total of 160,000. Soon after that, they will assess how much longer the higher troop level — about 30,000 more than before the buildup — will be needed. Since the troop buildup or "Surge" has not even been completed, it is not surprising that the premature and rash comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying the war was already lost and the troop buildup was not stemming violence in Iraq were rejected by Gates. "I respectfully disagree," Gates said when asked by a reporter about Reid's Thursday remarks. He assured al-Maliki that the U.S. continues to be committed to the Iraqi government and the Baghdad security plan, Gates said.<ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq </ref>

April 20, 2007 - Iraqi President Nouri al Malaki affirmed the indigenous Iraqi Assyrian Christians' right to have a Province of their own, which could be provided for under the Iraqi Constitution. Malaki was addressing questions concerning the minorities, many of whom are in neighboring countries, including an estimated nearly 500,000 Assyrian Christians. Additionally, Malaki said, "I think it is important to let the world know that things in our country are improving dramatically. Our unemployment rate has gone from nearly 70 percent to now under 30 percent. Our most recent growth rate was 3 percent and we have seen, in particular as a result of the recent Baghdad program, a dramatic drop in so-called sectarian violence. What is particularly encouraging to me is the changes we have seen in our security forces and the trust from our people once again. We are finally seeing individual citizens provide information to our forces, which has changed the situation dramatically in rooting out those who are determined to ruin our country."

Malaki stressed three key goals. National Reconciliation, Economic Development and Expanded Security as the way forward. "In spite of much information to the contrary, we are seeing a return to the Iraq we all once knew when we considered ourselves all Iraqis and not belonging to a particular sect or group," he said. "Recently we have brought back large numbers of former members of the Ba'ath Party who were not involved in any problems in the past and this has significantly helped to bring our people together. Economic development is taking place at a good rate. Part of the reason we are here is to encourage even more investment into our country. The monthly income of our people has gone from about $20 a month to now over $200. The dramatic rise in electrical use is one good sign that the economy is taking off. The stores are full." Describing the current military situation as "moving from sectarian to outside interference," Malaki stressed that the so called Baghdad Plan was working. "We are seeing a dramatic drop in the sectarian conflicts and see our major challenge as that from the outside including Al Quaida and remainders of the Ba'athist groups," he said. "In the end we will be able to take care of ourselves. Meanwhile, we need the help of our friends to stand against those who want to harm us."
<ref> http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040107.htm </ref>

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in a recent interview, that the increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in the country had achieved "modest progress" but had also had setbacks such as a rise in suicide bombings and other problems. Petraeus also stated that he was uncertain whether his counterinsurgency strategy would be ultimately succeed, but he stated "We have certainly pulled [Baghdad] neighborhoods back from the brink." Assessing the first two months of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to pacify the capital, senior American commanders -- including Petraeus; Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. forces in the Middle East; Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of military operations in Iraq; and top regional commanders -- see mixed results. Critical now, they said in interviews last week, is for Iraqi leaders to forge the political compromises needed for long-term stability. The deployment of additional troops in Baghdad is only 60 percent complete, and a major concern shared by U.S. military leaders is whether al-Maliki's government is capable of solidifying gains in security as well as making the crucial political compromises needed to achieve peace.
<ref> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70422011</ref>

In an interview of Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak Al-Rubaie aired May 10, 2007, Mr. Rubaie stated, "This is an ideological war. This is a -- a long-term war. This is a war on a global scale. This is a war, if it gets out of control, it will spill over to Europe and America in no time. And it will disturb the oil flow in the Gulf. What happened in Iraq is not something minor and simple, like a coup d'etat or a revolution. What happened is a hurricane. What happened is a huge, major shift, from the old order of 1,000 years of persecution, of dictatorship, of religious supremacy, of prosecuting minorities, to a completely new order, which is called democracy, human rights, accountability, and transparency, and all this. This paradigm shift needs some time. You cannot -- it needs strategic patience. And it needs time. You cannot fit this major shift and the strategic objectives in the election cycle of Washington. You cannot do that."

He went on to note progress and plead for patience, "I think we made a remarkable progress over the last three years. In June 2004, we had only one battalion in the Iraqi army. Now we have 11 divisions. And, in June 2004, we did not have policemen. We did not have national police, local police, an intelligence service. We didn't have anything. Now we have Iraqi security forces, several hundreds of thousands of them. And what we need, we need some refinements, some tuning. We need some training. And we need some equipment and logistical support. We need to build the system within the Iraqi security forces. In a very short period of time, we're going to be self-reliant."

"Take, for example, in Baghdad. Last year, Baghdad was under the command of an American general called General Thurman. And now Baghdad is under the command-and- control of general -- an Iraqi general called General Abboud. And he is commanding and leading and controlling 2.5 Iraqi army division and 11 or 13 Iraqi police, national police, brigades. -- we needed the upsurge, and we need the upsurge to clear some areas of these neighborhoods and to hold them and to build them. When we have this upsurge, let's the best use of it. And let's clear these areas and hold it and build it." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/10/acd.01.html </ref>

May 12, 2007, "Iraq's top Shi'ite party changes platform" gave the stunning news that "Iraq's biggest Shi'ite party, The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), pledged its allegiance to the country's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in a move that would distance it from Shi'ite Iran where it was formed. They said the party had been close to Sistani for some time, but a two-day conference formalised relations with the influential cleric. Officials said the party, which was formed in Iran in the 1980s to oppose Saddam, had previously taken its guidance from the religious establishment of Welayat al Faqih, led by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran. The party then pledged to follow the guidance of the Shi'ite establishment and also said it had introduced significant policy changes and changed its name to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) -- dropping the word "Revolution". <ref> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/tm_headline=iraq-s-top-shi-ite-party-changes-platform&method=full&objectid=19092898&siteid=89520-name_page.html </ref>

This was hailed in the Middle East as a very significant development, stating "The real change of direction and leadership of Iraqi Shiites to Sistani is the greatest victory of the new era of constitutionalism and civility in Iraq. The shifting of Shiite Islam to Najaf, instead of Qum, is a huge change and a direct result of Iraq's freedom that has changed the balance of power in Iraq and Iran. The New York Times-owned Boston Globe reports from Tehran that the influence of Iraqi Shiites is growing even there: "Some Iranians are intrigued by the more freewheeling experiment in Shi'ite empowerment taking place across the border in Iraq, where--Iraq's myriad problems aside--imams can say whatever they want in political Friday sermons, newspapers and satellite channels regularly slam the government, and religious observance is respected and encouraged but not required." <ref> http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2815&cid=2&sid=38 </ref>

CBS Evening News May 29, 2007 presented, "an exclusive interview, Iraq's Prime Minister tells CBS News the security crackdown is working." The network relayed how, “in his first American television interview since the U.S. troop surge began in February, Iraq's Prime Minister told CBS News today the additional forces here have prevented an even greater catastrophe.” Maliki also disclosed that there have been many victories in breaking up al Qaeda and other militant cells. <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13073 </ref>

Then on May 31, 07, the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" added, quote: U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease-fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said. He thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Sunni insurgents." He said the increased effort by commanders to reach out to militants goes hand in hand with reconciliation efforts by the Iraqi government. Odierno noted that efforts to engage tribal leaders in Anbar province — who have been turning against al-Qaida there — has helped draw people to serve in the Iraqi security forces in record numbers and has helped reduce attacks there. For example, the attacks in Anbar in May 2006 totaled 811, while this May they were just barely over 400. Since the beginning of 2007, over 12,000 Iraqi citizens have volunteered for Iraqi security forces in Anbar. In all of 2006, only 1,000 had volunteered. <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

Even Newsweek's June 4 edition on page 33, has a story by Melinda Liu on actual progress in Iraq, headlined: "Gathering the Tribes: U.S. field commanders are finally beginning to tap the traditional networks that helped Saddam stay in power." Liu reported from Ramadi that "Marines and Iraqi tribesmen and police are sitting together, swapping jokes and stories. Some of these Iraqis were probably shooting at Americans less than a year ago. Now they and the Marines are fighting side by side against Al Qaeda." The story also carried a large, bolded quote: 'Last year the Americans were our biggest enemies,' says one cop. 'Now they're how we get what we need.' The captions on the pictures read: PEACE SIGNS: Tribal recruits man a check-point in Ramadi (above); children and others now freely interact with Americans (right). <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13080 </ref>

And on May 31 a report "Sunnis Revolt Against al-Qaida in Iraq" confirmed the trend stating, "U.S. troops battled al-Qaida in west Baghdad on Thursday after Sunni Arab residents challenged the militants and called for American help to end furious gunfire that kept students from final exams and forced people in the neighborhood to huddle indoors. Backed by helicopter gunships, U.S. troops joined the two-day battle in the Amariyah district, according to residents of the Sunni district. Lt. Col. Dale C. Kuehl, commander of 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, who is responsible for the Amariyah area of the capital, confirmed the U.S. military's role in the fighting in the Sunni district. "The events of the past two days are promising developments. Sunni citizens of Amariyah that have been previously terrorized by al-Qaida are now resisting and want them gone. They're tired of the intimidation that included the murder of women," Kuehl said. Casualty figures were not immediately available. But the district councilman said Haji Hameed, the al-Qaida leader in Amariyah, was killed and 45 other fighters were detained. <ref>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/international/i154309D51.DTL </ref>

Meanwhile, U.S. forces handed over responsibility for security in Iraq's three northern provinces to the Kurdish regional government. Seven Iraqi provinces, including Najaf, Muthanna, Dhi Qar and Maysan, now have responsibility for their own security – a third of the total. The United States hopes to add more as Iraqi forces grow in capability. <ref> http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=74626 </ref>

March 2008 - 62% of Iraqis now say they want the US troops to stay in their country.. and a full 55% say their lives are going well. 

Marking the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, ABC's anchor Charles Gibson on World News Monday March 18, 2008 explained “we have polled inside Iraq and there is some good news.” Specifically, “today, 55 percent of Iraqi say their lives are going well. Last summer that number was 39 percent.” From Iraq, Terry McCarthy reported, "As our poll takers spread across the country they found that for the first time in three years, people were more worried about economic and social problems than violence. And almost half think their country will be better off in a year -- double the number six months ago. In Dora, in southern Baghdad, we found these kids playing on the street. A year ago, they would haven't dared to come outside.... McCarthy also noted in a telling reality check, only 38 percent want U.S. troops to leave now, afraid that the gains in security might be reversed.” This obviously means that 62 percent of the Iraqis polled want US troops to stay in their country until they are certain the gains in security and stability will not be reversed. “Even Fallujah has turned around,” McCarthy learned, “as the local population has largely abandoned the insurgency and now they're focusing on rebuilding the city from the ruins of war,” though tough tasks remain with most complaining about electrical shortages and poor health care services. <ref> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/18/abc-finds-optimistic-iraqis-kids-playing-safely-street </ref>

==Results of the Surge on casualties and terrorist attacks==

The surge has resulted in a 60% reduction in terrorist attacks and casualities since June of 2007 to the present.<ref>http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48515</ref>

==Iraq Strategy in Relation to the Global War on Terrorism==

As reported in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism <ref>http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/</ref> released April 30, 2007, there are steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe. Though terrorism has increased markedly in Iraq, aside from the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan according to State), the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is down from a year ago by over 300 incidents. In other words, the Bush administration's idea that making Iraq the "central front in the war on terror" seems to be working. According to the State report, terrorism in South Asia is down by 10 percent from a year ago. In Europe, it's down 18 percent. In Central and South America, terrorism-related deaths are down 54 percent. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/12431 </ref>

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war. But recently in June 2008, <ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5314609 The USA Military found 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium]</ref> and parts to make nuclear weapons in Tuwaitha 12 miles south of Baghdad, as proof that George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the CIA were right about Saddam owning yellow cake uranium that was going to be used to make weapons of mass destruction and also was a violation of the US resolution after the Gulf War that said Saddam shouldn't own any yellow cake uranium, and justifies the invasion of Iraq.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> However, there is no way to obtain hard physical evidence to back up their assertions due to the fact that Syria will not allow such intrusive inspection and searching in their country. Intelligence sources do, however, say that General Al-Tikriti is a credible witness as is the pilot who also testified that he flew such missions.

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a nuclear weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

The UK government Feb 18, 2008 released an early draft of its controversial dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, after losing a bid to keep it secret. The government has always maintained Williams' paper was not relevant as the final dossier was the work of its intelligence agencies. The dossier, quote: "concentrates on allegations that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's regime had acquired uranium, retained the ability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons and was developing long-range missiles." Even the UK's opposition Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Edward Davey conceded that, "The core analysis of the threat allegedly posed by Iraq is the same in both documents." <ref> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080218/world/britain_iraq_war_dossier_politics_intelligence_1 </ref>

These allegations are not in dispute, as the quoted detractors in the article make clear when it says of them, "Campaigners have been pushing for it to be made public, claiming it could show that the final dossier -- in which it was claimed Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes -- was the work of government "spin doctors"."

Apart from whether Iraq could have launched WMD in that time frame, the core analysis shows ample reason and justification for beginning Operation Iraqi Freedom - including weapons grade uranium, the ability to launch long-range missiles at Western allies and the ability to manufacture at will chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was a WMD threat with malicious intent and although how close to launching such attacks he was remains in question, the fact he was one year from aquiring the bomb and was calling for attacks and agents to be in place (in the West) while developing missiles to deliver these weapons against allied Western targets, figured strongly in the case for war.

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. Another dozen were found later in June. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> This finding was updated 2 days later as testing found that all sixteen rockets had initially showed traces of sarin, but were now "all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref> The article went on to state, "In January 2003, U.N. inspectors discovered a dozen old 122-millimeter rockets that chief inspector Hans Blix described at the time as "designed to carry chemical weapons." Iraq later turned up several more, and all were destroyed. Blix later said he was not sure whether Iraq mentioned them in the 12,000-page weapons declaration it submitted in December 2002.

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

In the article The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself.<ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref>

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref>

SEE: The Saddam Connection To Osama by ABC News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFWCg1BdRg

Foxnews reported March 23, 2008 that "Saddam Hussein’s Son Plotted London Assassination Attack", stating that "Saddam Hussein's son Uday planned to carry out an attack in London, England to assassinate the leader of an Iraqi opposition group in April 2000." Based on seized documents, Uday Hussein's elite paramilitary group — the Fedayeen — were given orders "to carry out assassinations and bombings in London, the Times reported."

Further, "While the study showed no link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda, it does detail the former Iraq dictator's support for Middle Eastern terror groups, including those linked to Al Qaeda. Also in the report are memos showing Uday ordered officials to “start planning special operations in the centres of the traitors’ symbols in the fields of London / Iran / self-ruled areas [Kurdish northern Iraq]”, it was reported." <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340745,00.html </ref>

===Summary update on WMD and Iraq/terrorist/Al Qaeda connections NOT being falsified===

The Los Angeles Times article, "Bush never lied to us about Iraq - The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception." By James Kirchick, June 16, 2008, a great deal of summary about these two previous sections on WMD and links to the Al Qaeda are given. The article states that, "Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of the charge.. that the Bush administration deceived the American people. Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods." <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story </ref>

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." 

Even concerning the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, 2008, quote, "what did this report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program."

The article contends that if Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA. It then asserts, "This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers." <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story </ref>

Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt also brought out what Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee found in their June 5, 2008 report, saying, quote:
<ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html </ref>

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into [Sen. Jay] Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." 

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." 

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

Hiatt then noted what the Republican part of the report said, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence." 

<ref> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/06/09/bush-lied-argument-doesnt-match-facts-democrats-say </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Regime Intent===

The Iraqi Survey Group in interrogations of Ba'athist officials from the leadership of the intelligence and security services, and Qusay’s inner circle, undertook interviews of Ba'athists in custody. Some detainees’ statements were made to minimize their culpability leading to potential prosecution. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and were not willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the tendency to place blame or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fled the country, or providing debriefers with previously known information. Some former high ranking officials, such as ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid Al Tikriti (Chemical ‘Ali), never gave substantial information, despite speaking colorfully and at length. Some obstructed all attempts to elicit information on WMD and illicit activities of the former Regime. Others, however, were keen to help clarify every issue, sometimes to the point of self-incrimination.

The ISG's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Saddam and many Iraqis regarded chemical weapons as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the [[Iran-Iraq war]]— and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. After 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital, or the know-how that was developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Saddam indicated that he would develop the weapons necessary to counter any Iranian threat. Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program workers with know-how, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base. The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals. The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure.

ISG judged, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months. A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dualuse process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. Uday — head of the Fedayeen Saddam — attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories of which were never declared to the UN. The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime. In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose. At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years” agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes. ISG judged that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Threat Level Concern===

It is worth noting the following concerning a current controversy about the level of threat Saddam posed. If you consider the terrorists as various minority factions all working toward the same goal, as stated by Mr. Kraft on this page when he says, "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so." It doesn't matter which of these factions would have been used to specifically target the civilized world in a nuclear or biological/chemical attack. Although recently the extent of Saddam's ties to one specific group (the Al-Qaeda terrorists) has been questioned and a recent article stated that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, the same article goes on to say concerning Al-Qaeda that "it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html </ref> Therefore, it is known that Saddam had forged long term relationships with known terrorist GROUPS (plural) and so it was not that there was no threat from any terrorists groups, just that the threat would have come from those OTHER terrorists as the threat to the collective security of the civilized world if the US hadn't taken out Saddam.

It also remains to be seen if the ties with Al-Qaeda would have remained "limited" if that group had stepped up and volunteered to take the completed nuclear weapons from Saddam (which he would have had within a year according to The New York Times - see the WMD section, this page) into Washington and detonate them using sophisticated and existing sleeper cell suicide bombers as Saddam was contemplating. It appears likely that Saddam would have listened and handed them his stocks of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by his statements (see Mr. Tierney's translation on this page). From his past actions, Saddam was an equal opportunity employer for all the terrorist groups.. including those they admit in this report with whom he had "long-term relationships." As Mr. Kraft observes, it is many "barbarians" at our gates with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for the first time, not only one group (Al-Qaeda.) It is global in scope, hence the reason for calling this a "Global War on Terror" not a "War on Terror in Iraq." As such, it is a fight for world supremacy, and the civilized world would do well not to ignore or minimize what the civilized world is fighting over.

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

In the exhaustive search for WMDs in Iraq, CNN has left all stones unturned - or have they? These are the words right out of the mouth of CNN reporter Jane Arraf <ref> http://www.cjr.org/iraq/chapt1.html </ref>, quote: "And if you had a bureau there, like we did, and it was a known bureau and a known company like CNN was, it was a beacon for everybody. It was a beacon for Iraqis who believed they had stories. Iraqis would show up, there would be Iraqis lined up outside the door. There... would be the Iraqis who told you they had nuclear documents in their basement and would you like to come and look [laughter]. You know, there was almost that pang when you turned somebody away, [you were] thinking, “Damn, maybe this guy really does have nuclear weapons in his basement, but I don’t have time.” So you never really knew."

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref> A 2008 study estimated that the Iraq War cost the United States $12 billion a month.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_costs;_ylt=ApGg20eC4zcjyEaIxwc8CC6s0NUE Studies: Iraq costs US $12 billion per month]</ref> This makes the Iraq war the most expensive endeavor in U.S. history.

==Casualties==

Former U.S. Attorney General in the [[Johnson Administration]], [[Ramsey Clark]], wrote the UN Security Council on 29 July 29 2002 claiming UN sanctions , "are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people" <ref>[http://www.radioislam.org/bush/act.htm Letter from Ramsey Clark to the U.N. Security Council members], 29 July 29 2002.</ref> A 1999 [[UNICEF]] Report stated that there were, at that time, 500,000 deaths of children under the age of five probably attributable to the U.N. sanctions. <ref>[http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm Iraq Surveys Show Humanitarian Emergency], (August 12, 1999).</ref>

===Coalition Troops===

According to the US Department of Defense, over 4,100 U.S. and 300 troops from coalition countries have died in the war. Over 30,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref> Despite a dramatic decrease in violence in the latter half of the year, 2007 was the worst year in Iraq in terms of U.S. casualties. Over 900 American troops died or went [[missing in action]] during the year.<ref>[www.icasualties.org Iraq War casualties]</ref>

===Enemy Casualties===

in March, 2007, Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton, a military historian, calculated that, "a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end. This is an entire generation of jihadists, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society." <ref> http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M </ref>

===Civilian Casualties===

Estimates of civilian casualties vary. According to Fox News, March 20, 2007, over 54,000 civilians have been killed in the war. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259875,00.html</ref> However, due to suicide bombings and other such activity, the fatalities caused by US/Coalition forces in action was only 31 percent of the total number given according to CNN's report October 2006, <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ </ref> down from 32 percent quoted by this Boston Globe report <ref> http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jackson191205.htm </ref> dated December 19, 2005. In the Fox News study, that would mean 16,740 of the 54,000 casualties.
On November 11, 2006, Iraqi Health Minister Ali al-Shamari estimated that between 100,000 and 150,000 civilians had been killed during the war.<ref>[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/11/2003335773 Iraq death toll may go as high as 150,000]</ref> A 2008 estimate by the [[World Health Organization]] placed the civilian death toll at 151,000.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080110/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_survey_dc 151,000 Iraqis killed since U.S.-led invasion: WHO]</ref>

==Summary of Justifications for the Iraq War Taken From This Entry==

If President Bush had not removed Saddam Hussein we now know that, QUOTE: The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a nuclear weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref> (end quote)

And we know that Saddam was discussing using WMD on Washington, DC (remember/keep-in-mind his soon nuclear capability from the last paragraph), QUOTE: In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref> (end quote)

President Bush's decision to depose Saddam Hussein meant that this plan Saddam was discussing in these tapes here - or with the atomic nuclear capacity he was to possess within a year - never came into execution. It is credible that literally MILLIONS of Americans are alive today because Saddam was stopped before he had the ability to put his plans into action. We know he had ties to terrorists, including, QUOTE:

In the article "The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden" dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself. <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq?" The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr Bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref> (end quote)

To say that the US should never have deposed Saddam when he posed such a threat is irresponsible. The detractors from the Iraq War today would presently be decrying the dead and dying in America and saying President Bush should have gone to war to prevent such devastating losses, had he refrained from engaging in the Iraq War. We know that since then Bin Laden has worked toward attacking the US on his own, without the assistance of Saddam. QUOTE:

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref> (end quote)

The act of war on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein was justified to protect the Homeland of America from Saddam's planned and certain future catastrophic attack. The red herring <ref> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html </ref> of not finding the WMD in Saddam's backyard does not diminish the threat to the Homeland of America because Saddam had proven his willingness to use such WMD on the Kurdish people in Iraq <ref> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article351987.ece
</ref> and he would have had the atom bomb within a year by expert opinion. To expect that he would not have put into execution his stated aims against America is to act like an ostrich and put one's head in the sand.

If the atomic threat is not sufficient, under "regime intent", above, the Iraqi Survey Group's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. The section on The Duelfer Report points out that there were reference strains of biological agents which were found and evidence of the ability to quickly start chemical and biological warfare production, QUOTE: Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents (end quote)

Saddam's son in law tells Saddam, quote: In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref> (end quote)
Also, there is credible testimony that Saddam had the weapons and moved them, quote: Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> (end quote)

There are those who think that attacks upon America must actually happen in order to prove that these things exist or pose an imminent threat. The Iraq War was a preventative war and as such its merit relies on the mental ability of the public to perceive future threats and act in keeping with that threat and not ignore it - just as a person must swerve their car in the face of oncoming traffic in order to avoid an accident. As with this example, it does little good to discuss the merits of whether there would have been a crash or not after the fact since the evidence of past destruction which was avoided will never be obtainable.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.
*[http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx CENTCOM] Home page.

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category: United States of America]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-06-03T04:13:48Z

Orion Blastar: /* The whole article */

== Editing This Page ==

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

== Biased Line ==

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

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

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

(that he has problems trying to give away)

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

I edited in a section called 'Evidence' that was solidly backed up with references to reputable scientific sites. I see they've been reverted for 'Liberal bias'. What's 'Liberal bias' about facts about glacier recession and sea level rise? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:10, 23 March 2007

The article currently says "The theory enjoys wide political support, but many climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." This makes it sound as if there is an even balance between the number of climatologists and meteorologists who agree and disagree with the theory. This is inaccurate. The sentence should read "a minority of climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it." I thought we were all about accuracy? The following sentence about 'consensus' is negated by the references to two out of that small minority of climatologists and meteorologists who disagree. By all means their names and views should be left in, to represent their disagreement, but their weight in the scale of scientific opinion should not be over-represented, and it should be balanced by reference to the names of proponents of the theory. I would be happy to make these changes, but the page is locked. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== The whole article ==

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

It's responses like this previous one which threaten to keep me coming back to this discussion board... for entertainment purposes, of course. Is this new global warming "religion" similar to Darwinism I've heard about? Many other well recognized and substantially supported scientific ideas have been labeled "religions" or "agendas," etc... I personally believe this points to the dichotamous nature of the conservative mindset, and perhaps a little bit of paranoia too. Folks who disregard science on the basis that it doesn't mix well with their present beliefs are helplessly incapable of understanding science. Now, does the scientist understand religion? Well, that's not a topic for science.
: I think how it got the religion label is that science is not about beliefs, but global warming has become about beliefs that human beings are causing the world to heat up by their actions. That skeptics of global warming are treated like skeptics of any religion by pro-global warming supporters. Once politics gets involved with it, global warming has become a political theory with an ideology of beliefs and tries to shut down any debates about the issues or allow theories to be tested. Not only that but the scientific method is not followed in many reports, they for example use computers to calculate formulas but refuse to give the formulas or the source code to the programs that calculate data in order for skeptics to test the theory. Many skeptics want to test the theory themselves, which is what science is supposed to allow, but are denied access to information etc that would allow them to conduct their tests. Now we are told that the world must accept that global warming is true and a fact, and that we must believe in it in order to save the planet. Science has never been about beliefs, but when you hold a system of beliefs it is more religion than science. [[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 00:13, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

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

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

::If it's the sun, and I do think it is, you have to think of how much farther from the sun Mars is as compared to earth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It doesn't 'disprove' pro-global warming scientists. It just factors in increased solar activity as another aspect of global warming and says nothing about anthropogenic aspects. Scientists generally believe that solar forcing, as it's called, is in the neighbourhood of one tenth of the total contribution to the heating of the atmosphere. Even this skeptic is citing solar forcing as no more than one third to two thirds contribution, and feels that anthropogenic contributions will be more important over the next century. http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar . What are your figures for the extent of polar ice cap recession on Mars compared to the extent of polar ice cap recession on Earth? Take into account too the very different atmospheric conditions prevailing on Mars. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]]1:15, 24 March 2007

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

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

*I believe there is plenty of evidence, and scientists, who do not adopt the panic-mode of Gore and others. Many believe it is a natural occurrence, perhaps hastened by fossil fuel consumption, but nevertheless something that has occurred hundreds of times, in the life of the planet. It is your job, everyone, as contributors and posters here, to edit the page to strike some balance, rather than dismiss opposing thought as morons, and ignore what others say. ''If this cannot be done, I will lock the page''. I hate to do that, because supposedly adults, thinking people, should be able to arrive at a meaningful compromise. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Lots of things are "perfectly natural".... like dying of [[cholera]] at age 28. We do our best to stop that from happening, too. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 02:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The way we stopped cholera is by avoiding wishful thinking and carrying out careful experiments. There's a fascinating detective story about how the first researcher proved that it was contaminated water (from a single pump?) that was causing a cholera epidemic in London. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::On the other hand, if we render the planet TOTALLY unlivable, Jesus will HAVE to return and save us all!

::No need to lock the page. I know a lot about what both sides are saying and can perhaps help to craft a balanced article. (I am the original author of [[Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 02:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks Ed!! Thats the spirit! I posted some links below, so some can take a look, possibly add their own, of actual scientists who just hate all the alarmism. Feel free to IM me anytime. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:*'''Sorry, some felt the need for a fight tonight, I guess, and kept reverting. Just let me know, I will unlock it once the children have stopped their tantrums.''' --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Facts & Links To Check Out... ==

Whose Ox Is Gored? The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804]

The Tempest
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html]

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html]

An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away: [http://newsbusters.org/node/9262]

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

<blockquote>
"...But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.

'''Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.'''

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

'''While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”'''

Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.

'''It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent.'''

Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did “indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.” But the June report, he added, shows “that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.”

Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

'''“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”'''

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

'''“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”''' </blockquote>
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html]

== Al Gore Header ==

*Is it really necessary? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 04:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

There are hundreds of people, some with star power and knowledge exceeding Al Gore, on both sides of this issue. Why is Al Gore given somemuch time and space in this catagory?

"So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming""

quoted from above. By whose notion is he the leading expert on Global Warming? Where is reference to Hansen, Broecker, Schmidt,Thompson et al, you know people who actually study this stuff for a living? Why focus on Gore? ''---The preceeding unsigned comments were added by Third Day''

:The Democratic Party is largely Liberal, and global warming is a big issue for liberals. Al Gore is one of the most popular Democrats, and he has a book out called "Earth in the Balance". Who else *but* Gore? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
*Were you speaking to me? If so, I am wondering why the info under the Gore heading couldn't be better placed in the body of the article rather than his own heading..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::More like, um, thinking aloud here.

::Conservatives have [[Richard Lindzen]], who is an actual scientist who makes sense and doesn't fudge the numbers. Liberals only have <s>[[Jim Hansen]],</s> who will never live down his "scary scenarios" remark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::*Oops, I meant [[Stephen Schneider]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I just added a line to the Gore header, to balance it some. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

=Some Liberal Bias=
Under "Conflicting Ideas/ Data" someone wrote "The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals." Clearly this was done after deleting a point showing some actual conflicting ideas or data, and this is a bias meant to mislead people into thinking that global warming is not challenged by any in the scientific community.

:Then go in the history and find the source, and put it back in. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
*Exactly! And be sure to let either Hoji or me know if another revert war starts. ;-) ---~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocking ==

This article is far from complete. When will it be unlocked so we can add information about scientific data showing natural causes for warming, explanation of the solar flux theory, carbon dioxide tracking temps, cosmoclimatology, paleoclimatology, etc. As it stands it makes it look like all we care about is the political side of things. This can't be true, can it? This unsigned comment was made by [[User:Third Day]]

*You are right. I suppose for now, if you would like to post the additions here, they can be pasted over. Or you can contact me, and I could open it up for you to edit. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously nothing was important enough to contact me about, or post here about. Makes me wonder why, upon locking a page, people want it open, for what? If they don't come back with a suggestion or contribution, what is the point? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:53, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I've been on the road, hence I did not respond. Some of us have lives outside of this site. I will put together a summary of additions I feel worthy and post here in the talk section. I do wonder if the whole Wiki concept is undermined if the additions need to be vetted by a select few. It may take years for the articles to settle into a reflection of community knowledge, but thats the point, right? Nobody goes to a wiki, any kind of wiki, for the absolute truth on anything. No wiki is a valid source in a peer reviewed paper or even a college paper. It is a way to get a sense of the state of knowledge in a community of users. Wikipedia suffers from the fact that the community of users is so broad as to produce everchanging articles. There are Wikis that restrict the user base to members of certain communities - like a company or agency or users of a particular software. But if Conservapedia wants to surviv and not be mocked it needs to open itself up to slings and arrows. If indeed, we conservatives really believe that our point of view will dominate, then we need not be afraid to open up to liberal edits - cause enough of us will respond in force, and in time will overwhelm. If we just lock down the articles will never evolve (pardon the word) into a compleat, trustworthy wikipedia. OK, I'm done ranting. Off my soap box now :). - Third Day

==Are there any Wikipedia editors here?==
An article on Scientific data withholding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_withholding] has been nominated for deletion. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scientific_data_withholding#.5B.5BScientific_data_withholding.5D.5D] If you are a Wikipedia editor, please read the article and vote. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 00:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong question to ask here. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to canvas for votes. You're doing the right thing in the wrong way. Next step is RFC and/or an email to Jimbo. You don't win this kind of battle by stooping to their level. Stay here and work on the climate articles, instead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I just learned about "canvassing." I know Connelly is doing it because people are showing up to vote who have not read the article or the Talk page. Teach me the right way to handle this, Ed. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is off-topic, but since I brought it up I better finish it.

:This is the type of battle that it's okay to lose. When people see that the process was followed on one side, but ignored or misused on the other side, then sympathy is genereated for the correct side. Think Rosa Parks. Think [[sit-ins at lunch counters]]. And also think about contributing more here. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 00:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

=== Using "Global Climate Change" is not kosher ===

This is a way for carbon alarmists to hedge their bets, and answer critics if there's a series of cold winters. In the 1970s they were ringing the Ice Age bell, now they've settled on warming so they can dial back the economies of the West (while ignoring China). [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:The [[global warming controversy]] has replaced the [[Vietnam War]] and [[nuclear power]] as the big-ticket leftist issue. And now that Communism has faded from Europe and is morphing in [[China]], what are all the socialists going to get into but the [[Environment]]? It's the perfect materialistic cause, and there's plenty of money to go around. The US government alone spends over a billion dollars a year on "research" and the United Nations issues assessments every few years (see [[IPCC]]). We all know how objective and fair minded the UN [[General Assembly]] has been on non-environmental issues such as [[human rights]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::note that nuclear power is actully the best canidate for clean, alternative energy; yet, most enviornmentalist organizations such as Greenpeace are vehemently opposed to it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This article is a completely unsourced diatribe. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== pictures ==
We need some pictures--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Admin: Can we use wikipedia.org pictures? --[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 04:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:yes if it's public domain.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 04:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ideological inconsistencies ==

I don't think I would be too wrong in saying that conservative young-earth creationism and skepticism over human-induced climate change usually go together, not all the time of course, but on this site they seem to. Whats strange however, is that geological evidence is cited uncritically in this article in order to discredit human-induced climate change:

:"Global warming is a natural periodic increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, and it has always been followed by period of global cooling ... According to geologists, the Earth has experience numerous ice ages."

Even though this is incompatible with young earth creationism. To quote from Conservapedia's own [[Ice Age]] entry:
:"Mainstream geologists and Young Earth creationists are at odds over whether any ice ages have actually occurred."

A clear demonstration, in my opinion, of the type of muddled thinking that conservative fundamentalist ideology generates. (These inconsistent portions of the articles were even added by the same author: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=124708 Global warming edit history] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ice_Age&diff=prev&oldid=113042 Ice Age edit history].)
[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's more a typical demonstration of jumping to conclunions on the part of liberals. I'm the author of the current [[global warming]] article, and I'm not a YEC. :P --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I would also point out that I am the main author of the [[Theory of evolution]] article which is definitely critical the macroevolutionary position, and I am undecided regarding the global warming issue in regards to its possible causes and its possible effects. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::You still add criticism of mainstream geology when it suits you, and uncritically marshal it in your support when it doesn't. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 16:35, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Orgone has a very good point. A YEC should have no issue with global warming since the earth has not been around long enough to go through these climate changes that geologists say we have gone through.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

'''See also:''' [[Nineteen_Eighty-Four | Doublethink]]

==Liberal bias==

I would like to ask anyone who disagrees with top U.S. climate experts - Harvard and MIT scientists and U.S. state climatologists - to go slowly and carefully when editing this article.

My dad majored in physics, and I got top grades in math and physics. There is a lot of liberal misinformation about [[Anthropogenic global warming]] tied to the UN-promoted [[Kyoto Protocol]], the global warming treaty which seeks a "[[carbon tax]]" and other forms of [[emissions trading]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well ''my'' dad is bigger than ''your'' dad so ''there''! (Childish of me i know, but i couldn't resist it!) :-p [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Java, I agree with some of your edits, but I think that the first paragraph should stick to undisputed facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:I aded references. [[User:Java|Java]] 17:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all references tell the truth. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:22, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Is this a joke? I referenced from Nature, PNAS, Science and GISS. Why should the current references tell the truth? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::::for 1 thing anything talking about "the last 420,000 years" is wrong. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I am a little vexed. Do you want to put me on? [[User:Java|Java]] 17:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

*Java, YEC's, since they don't believe the Earth is older than 6,000 years or so, won't accept those figures. RSchlafly, I have once again protected this article, so stop this kind of constant arguing. Please keep an eye peeled for our more Liberal Sysop's opening it up. Thanks! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::As I pointed out above in '''Ideological Inconsistencies''', if this site is to view everything through the distorting mirror that is YEC, why do the references to [[Ice Age]]s stay in the introductory section? [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 07:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Um, please freeze on a version with facts ==

Not to rock the boat or anything, but the current un-editable version of the Global Warming page has essentially no scientific merit. Could someone please revert to a version with some actual discussion of global warming. I'm happy to write it. It involves sunshine, blackbody radiation, the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide, and an explanation of climate feedbacks. -Ifixthings

: I agree. Describe global warming accurately first. Get into the politics later. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

*Cool, Roger. Open it, edit it, do whatever. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, I unlocked it. Please keep science and politics separate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I love the nice accurate new version. I give it five minutes before it's reverted.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
**Yeah, it didn't last long, which is stupid because it was much more correct.[[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 17:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh Ed Poor... You make me an sad panda, those corrections you made are quite horrible. The version by Ifixthings was a good one, and the missing citations could be corrected quite fast, already found several good and reliable sources. Wikintrepeter at least fixed the most outrageous claims. But still some are left like: "However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject" Still at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries support the claim and only one to my knowledge opposes it, that being American Association of Petroleum Geologists. And to be honest, them opposing it isn't really surprising. Im seriously baffled how one can deny the scientific consensus here, and seeing what i claim to be intellectual dishonesty makes me really sad, as this is something which will directly affect our lives and if not ours then at least our children's. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Both of the APA's voted that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Does that make it true? Are you quite sure their votes were not politically motivated?

:It doesn't matter how many '''groups''' take a stand on a matter of science. It only matters what the science actually is. But if you care about polls, what percent of climate scientists support or oppose the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] theory? If you know, do speak up. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed, at minimum it matters what groups take a position since you claimed that "the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject". Even if that weren't the issue at hand, the number of people who are experts on an issue and have come to a conclusion a certain way about the issue does matter. While it doesn't alter who is correct in an absolute sense it does alter the estimated probability of an opinion being correct for someone who is trying to get some idea what to do and who does not have the time or resources to go through all the data that the experts do. That logic applies to any application of a scientific endeavor. For example there are still some geocentrists, the government when formulating policy does not need to worry about them. This is true for a politician whether or not that politician has bothered to understand what is wrong with geocentrism. Note that I'm not saying that global warming is equivalent to geocentrism but making the point that when evaluating claims on limited data or resources, the opinion of the vast majority matters. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::JoshuaZ allready gave so good answer that i have little to add to it. Im not sure if there has been done any exact polls on how many percentage of the experts on this area support or opposes anthropogenic global warming, but ill try to find one. Alltho i think that allready the number of supporting scientific societies and academies of science and the lack of opposing ones gives an quite good picture of the situation. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A trustworthy article should give scientific facts, don't you agree? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I really dont see where you are aiming at with this, as the link i just gave on the conversation bit below, shows that allready at year 2000 there where no studyes to be found that opposed the concencus, but offcourse there will allways be some "scientists" who disagree. if you are aiming for universal acceptance of an theory before it can be called an scientific fact, i must say we really dont have any. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

''The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years,'' YECs why don`t you delete this phrase and block the article? --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Joshua, the top experts say it's natural, and surveys of climatologists agree. What exactly is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: That's simply false. The UN report which you dislike was written by the top experts, who signed off on it. Again, the vast majority of the relevant scientific organizations have agreed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I've asked you twice for proof of this. I ask you here one last time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Sigh. Did you read what I wrote on your talk page or not? Almost every single author of the reports(and I listed a few as examples) is a respected scientist and there are about 40 authors to each report. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Found atleast [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 this] as an partial answer to the question here and above, alltho the report is already quite old and rapid progress has been made during few years, even at year 2000 this study didn't found '''any''' studies that disagreed with the consensus. That should already tell something. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: Hmm, interesting quote from that "This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

A literature search by a [[Kyoto Protocol]] supporter is not the same as a study or a survey. It means nothing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Celsius ==

How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the [[Little Ice Age]] in 1850. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would prefer Kelvin. --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). [[User:Human|Human]] 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary "looks like". I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Political bias==

The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And ''Science'' might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's "not of interest to their readers". I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Um, what? Science isn't a "popular journal" but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No? ''This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.'' --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says "I agree with the IPCC about (anything)." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.
:And a recent examples:
Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 [[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666

== Independent scientists such as ... [[Fred Singer]] ==

Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, well by "independent" I just meant "speaking for himself", "not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line". Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Like [[James Hansen]] - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/][http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183]
:::Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::False citation: #11 doesn't say he was told not to talk about global warming, it just says that official press releases would be scrutinized. #12 doesn't mention his ability to talk at all; in it Hansen accuses Bush of stifling evidence (but without giving any examples of this supposed stifling). #13 says "Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing" but doesn't give the wording of this supposed "threat" or even a summary of it.

:::This is typical of liberals: they make claims which have no evidence. The entire case on global warming consists of claims that "the world's top scientists agree" but they give no polls to support this "consensus" claim. They say that "models predict" but when the models are contradicted by observations they say that "models aren't predictions". They say it's carbon dioxide, but CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when there was cooling, and anyway the climate record of the last 400 million years show an 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change - CO2 '''follows''' temperature, rather than driving it.

:::They are politicizing science while running a well orchestrated PR campaign of calling the kettle black. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so...... ==

Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/what_happened_predictions.html][http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/failpred.html] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc).

Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.asp?pr=2178] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.

Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.
:*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
:Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation? ==

I removed this uncited statement:

"However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position."

Can anyone give a citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the "no proof" claim should be taken out.

:But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

One of the citations: [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This "study" has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/FORUM.pdf] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

:Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

This paragraph does not distinguish between "global warming", i.e., a rise in temperature and "the Global Warming theory", i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.

Also undefined is "the effects of Global Warming". What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism Edit==
I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's ok, no problem. I was just surprised when I looked and right after my edit it said 'removed vandalism'. ;-) I didn't catch it myself until I saw your change. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

"The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years" - not according to this wiki's article on [[Ice Age]]. You can't have it both ways, did they occur, and is the earth at least 2,000,000 years old, or did they not and is it not? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

........--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationary scientists]] believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf ''What about the Ice Age?''], ''The Creation Answers Book'', Chapter 16). I guess I was hoping for a clearer answer than "........", which I don't understand. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cite Leading Group of Climate Change Skeptics? ==

As the IPCC is included in the introduction to this entry, it's appropriate that the leading group of climate change skeptics be cited, instead of individual scientists. Does anybody know what the appropriate body to cite is? I'm aware of "The Friends of Science", but I believe they're exclusively Canadian. [[User:Dbarefoot|Dbarefoot]] 08:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

I posit that if we're going to lay out the groups on both side of the global warming debate, they ought to be qualified equally, or not at all. I don't think these qualifiers are appropriate in introductions--they belong in the particular entries about the individuals or groups.

As I've queried above, I think it makes sense to describe the leading group of climate change skeptics or doubters, as they seem a natural counterpoint to the IPCC. Citing individual scientists seems too anecdotal for an encyclopedia, which ought to seek to be conclusive.

== " removing liberalness" ==

Is now given as a reason to alter an article? Ironically, the rather few "non-liberal" qualifiers I have ever typed were all reverted. Maybe because a liberal is not allowed to say these things? Or perhaps, just because since I can't understand them, I can't push the POV appropriately? [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Look at the statement i removed. i removed it because it was unsourced. perhaps i should have said "removing unsourced statement"[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Remember, liberal sources don't count! --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== How about these changes? ==

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 have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.[Citation Needed]

I was going to use -> http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806 <- this as a citation before the page got locked :)

....and also I must take issue with this statement. "The scenario most postulated is dust storms.[4]"

Dust storms are not the "most" postulated -- The sun's solar cycles are just as much of a plausable theory....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

:I have no problem with that change, and I'm the one who entered the original information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neptune ==

I just read today that global warming has been found to be occurring on Neptune. It matches the same pattern for the time period found upon Mars and earth. It may be safe to assume that is not due to human intervention. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Where did you see this? I'd be very interested in reading about this in more detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950. I hope this is enough information to 'dig' it up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Found it. The paper is interesting. The correlation found was positive but not statistically significant between the brightness of Neptune and the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, from my reading it looks like one might expect a significant correlation even if most of the recent warming on earth is anthropogenic (note that this isn't my area of expertise so that could be painfully wrong). It should be interesting to see where this goes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I take no personal position on the issue, but I do believe any information that could be meaningful to form a complete picture should be included. That Mars and Neptune are both heating up over the same time period as the earth, and in the case of Mars even the temperature amount is similar, is certainly notable. It seems to me there is too much of an effort to dismiss information that would appear to be at odds with the concept that global warming is caused by humans, and that is unfortunate. (Note: I don't count global warming on Pluto due to Pluto's strange orbit. It has too many oddities, from my point of view, to be put in the same category.) Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the header title before posting here, I hope I didn't step on any toes. The Header ''was'' '''Global Warming on other Planets''' Which I changed to '''Warming ''of'' other Planets'''. I did this to prevent confusion, though indeed the other planets are ''also'' globes but usually, (in my experience) "global" means the sum and totality of Earth. Feel free to change it back if'n you want. - [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the talk message, and no offense taken. I've found that articles that discuss other planets usually still use the term global warming. For instance it has been popular to talk about global warming on Venus over the last decade or so, and the term global warming is used. The source about global warming on Mars also used the words global warming and Mars in the title. For these reasons I felt it was appropriate to keep the header title with global warming. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have [[experiment]]al evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is it an error? No. It is correct as it is. "Belief" means to give assent to an idea. It does not mean, despite the way some atheistic types think of it, as accepting an idea without evidence or good reason.
:Is it the best way to word it? Maybe not, but I'm not happy with your suggestion either. If I remember, I'll have more of a think about it.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::How about "Secular scientists think"? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::To my mind, "believe" is the better word. "Think" to me indicates some doubt, whereas "believe" can be a very strong conviction. But not everybody sees it that way, so I'll agree to changing it to "think", and in fact I've just done that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*This article has taken on drastic changes, it is a diluted, semi-neutral piece. It needs to be overhauled without the Liberal bias, and the removed material from warming skeptics added back. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
What is wrong with semi-neutral??? Is it only good if it carries a right wing arch-conservative bent?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Britnme, it is not true that getting peer-reviewed work published is a guarantee that it is based on experimental evidence. It only means that no obvious errors were found, and that the editor thinks it will interest his readers.

:Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==AGW==

Cut from article:

:... contrasts with the effects predicted for [[anthropogenic global warming]].

What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

Hi Dan, I'd like to point out that it is possible for Creation Scientists to believe in global warming as well, but they would not attach a 2 million year period of ice ages. ICR, for instance, takes a neutral view on global warming believing so far that the case has not been made satisfactorily, but they are open to ongoing evidence that may steer their opinion one way or the other if more concrete information is found. But even if they did feel global warming has been shown to be caused by humans, they still would not believe the earth is 2 million years old. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, the age issue would apply only to Young Earth Creationists. I will freely admit that more creation scientists are global warming skeptics than other scientists, but I don't think we need to make the distinction here, especially because, as you said, groups like ICR take a neutral stance on it, so it's a separate issue. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::The edit was to a paragraph about ice ages, not about global warming itself. That's why it is appropriate to qualify it somehow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Falsehood==

The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term "liberal falsehood" to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with DanH. You can't deny that global warming is happening. The real question is whether or not it's natural or if it's caused by us. An article about global warming itself and not about a specific cause of it can hardly be ca;;ed a "liberal falsehood" can it?[[User:Nsmyth|Nsmyth]] 03:03, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think another point of dispute is what global warming actually is. Is it a real problem of the planet getting inexorably warmer, or just the rising part of a regular (or irregular) warming/cooling cycle? It's not that long since the alarmists were telling us that we were headed for another ice age! The term "global warming" doesn't suggest the latter, so depending on just what the term means, I would suggest that some ''do'' dispute whether it (the former definition) is a real phenomenon at all. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:51, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Liberal bias, as it has just been changed to, sounds much better. Falsehood sounded like too big an elephant to chew. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you, Learn together! I am so use to people calling me an idiot or disagreeing with anything I do, I will save this post of yours! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:12, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hockey Stick ==

This seems like an inappropriate graph to me. The gray are the real values, but they've been averaged to get a blue line to smooth out large fluctuations. Highlighting the ups and downs of the gray would give a very different picture. Also, it only deals with the northern hemisphere, which makes the overall numbers incomplete for the 'global' part of global warming. (I realize the ice samples were only taken from the north pole, but we've got another pole that needs to be checked for balance if those figures are to be as meaningful as they are made to appear.) Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

The linked citation reads: ''AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. ExxonMobil gave AEI approximately $925,000 between 1998 and 2003.''

Jacques, why do you keep cutting out the part about the AEI trying to buy scientists? It's got a citation. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Clay mathematics institute also offer money rewards, do you think it's trying to buy scientists?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I won't have any idea until you put a link in there for a cite, so I can read it for myself. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::The Nobel Prize committee make their award on the basis of what someone has done (i.e. a reward) not on the basis of getting someone to prove or do something (i.e. a bribe). [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Let me guess--you own stock in Exxon? Such defensiveness ill-becomes someone with no money in this fight. --23:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And you own stock in solar power companies.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have a cite with a very long list of opponents to the global warming theory who have been sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. This is relevant to support the statement that such large oil industry companies are leading opponents of the theory. The line about offering $10,000 can be omitted if it's felt to be irrelevant.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Please do--then at least I won't get banned for an 'edit war'. And Jacques, PLEASE post a list of scientists being bankrolled by the massive Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, once you get it together. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::well, your thinking seems to be: tax money = good, donation = evil. Private donation automatically corrupt people and tax money does not, and any scientist who accept private donation is an Evil Communist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::man what
::::::oooookay. Let me make sure I understand your 'logic' here. Basically, you're saying that all these scientists, both the goverment-funded and the Exxon-funded, are equally corrupt, and should be treated with exactly the same amount of credibility, the same way that 'researchers' for the [[Tobacco institute]] were treated when they were the only doctors on Earth who failed to find a connection between smoking and lung diseases. Am I understanding your 'reasoning' here, so far? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::::So you are saying that you would have believed it when Soviet Union government funded Scientists claimed they have 'disproved' Darwinian evolution?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Considering how many Darwinists they had to ship off to Siberia to do it? Maybe not. Anyway, working off of your apparent belief that the Government is funding Global Warming research for its own insidious ends, what's the Bush-controlled US government's incentive to _support_ the Global Warming Theory? (Especially seeing how George is an oilman himself.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::Of course, Soviet government would never tell you that they ship dissenters overseas now would they. And despite what you may think, George Bush does not control the distribution of science funding.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::::You don't know where [[Siberia]] is, do you. And what's the rest of the [[Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy]]'s reason for their immense hoax? --00:34, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::"equally corrupt", or "equally likely to be corrupt"? Surely nobody here is claiming that either side is corrupt, merely suggesting that they might be account where the money is coming from. From that point of view, I would say yes, each side is ''equally likely'' to be corrupt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I am quite happy with the current version, which is a simple statement of fact - thank you for the edit, Jaques, which I think improves it. Regarding tobacco/lung diseases mentioned, I wonder if on the article about [[Richard Lindzen]] it should be mentioned how much money he received from the tobacco industry to dispute the connection between tobacco and lung diseases. Not that I would suggest for one moment that the gentleman does not believe what he advocates. I'm sure he is quite sincere--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'll bet he's sincere. Nothing produces true sincerity like a regular paycheck. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18121730/site/newsweek/ Richard Lindzen has already responded to this sort of smearing tactics by enviornmentalists.] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:07, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::"If a man's paycheck depends on him not understanding something, you can pretty well depend on him not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair's Law.

:::::::The wording that Jaques keeps deleting was previously approved by sysop Phillip J Rayment. These deletions smack of vandalism are against the CP commandments. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Standard Wikipedia tactic. Come into channel, blame someone for rules violations, get him booted, take over, right? It worked for SlimVirgin over there. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*I will be the decider of that sock, not you. I suggest you keep to productive edits, and off the talk pages. Unfortunately, Arjen was a sock of BrianCo, and actually even posted on the user page. Both gone now. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I am still not getting what's wrong with an oil company funding global warming research. Or what is significant about some of that research being different from the consensus. What do the critics think -- that ExxonMobil should ignore the issue? That all research should just endorse what has already been published? I made a change to drop some of the goofy conspiratorial innuendo. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::There's no innuendo about a statement of fact - this company gave this much money to these organizations over this period of time, and the organizations all had one thing in common. It's not a conspiracy - it's a perfectly straightforward transaction as far as I can see. There's no secret about it and the figures are public. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: The innuendo is that that oil companies only gave money to skeptics, that they funded bad science, and that there is something improper about them funding research. Your sources don't prove any of those things, and are just goofy left-wing conspiracy rants. Can you please explain the point of the statement on the Talk page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::There is nothing improper at all about a company only funding researchers whose views are in their commercial interests and I don't think the statement says it's improper - it says E-M is opposed to this view and they fund people whose views agree with theirs but run counter to the mainstream. As I said, there's no conspiracy about it - conspiracy implies secrecy and this is no secret. Moreover, it could be argued that it's entirely proper for a company to defend its own commercial interests and that of its shareholders. I can't understand why there should be a problem about making their stance clear, as it's unarguable that this is their stance.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:02, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: The problem with your claim is that it is just not true that ExxonMobil only funds research that runs counter to the mainstream. It has given $100M to Stanford Univ. for mainstream research. Your sources on this do suggest a kooky conspiracy theory, it is just not plausible and not reported in any reliable source. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you! It needs a because it is mostly inserted UN material. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

For the record, the fact that I copyedit something rather than remove it should not be taken as "approval" of it. It might just mean that I have no knowledge of its accuracy, or haven't bothered to research it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Philip, I didn't see anyone blaming you....the edits can all be seen. No worries. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:48, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
: No, no-one "blamed" me for anything, but Arjen cited me as approving the paragraph in question, simply because I edited it and didn't remove it, so I was just making clear that my editing should not imply approval. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Oh! Well it was his snippy remark that lead me to research him, and I found him to be a smelly old sock, Philip. So no need to bother with him anymore! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Re-write Time.... ==

Has anyone actually read this article? Not with an eye towards editing it, but from the POV of someone seeking information? I doubt it. It is overly technical and wordy, cumbersome, IMO. Sort of what one gets via committee, lol. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:There's not much that can be done right now; it's locked. I agree, in looking at it, that it lacks flow. Even the opening paragraph has redundancies. I wonder why we keep the hockey stick graph if we know there are problems with it? -- even 'wiki' has less liberal graphs. I also wonder why we don't use fahrenheit instead of celsius. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== proposed direction ==

I'd like to find a good source that concisely lays out the IPCC case for attributing the warming to GHGs. I know that in the TAR, the evidence was chiefly the inability of the models to reproduce the temperature trend without GHGs. Since then AR4 has reduced the estimated contribution of solar activity even further. But I don't think I will find a good layout of the IPCC case in the summary for policy makers. I need to look at the working group I report again.

Of course the response will be to point out the poor quality of the models, as done on the Climate models page, and the rare and unusual level of current solar activity per Solanki, and how poorly solar activity is understood per Foucal (sp?).

There is also a possible significant and underappreciated role for aerosols, with the trend from solar dimming to solar brightening, in the late 80s and 90s.

I am not sure what the purpose of the "Natural variability of the climate system" section is, it doesn't go anywhere, and the information it describes is not particularly controversial. Even scientists who don't "believe in global warming" accept the ices ages.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 02:25, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Creationary scientists don't believe in multiple [[ice age]]s, regardless of whether or not they believe in global warming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Wouldn't that be covered by a note or sentence in the body, Philip? I don't feel comfortable making each and every article here from a YEC POV, as that idea isn't covered by our Commandments or Guidelines. Being that we have many who are YEC's, we need to strive more for inclusion, rather than exclusion, by at least noting where some Christians differ, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:28, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::Ah, but it is covered by the commandment that says every article must be true and accurate! :-)
::Seriously, as far as I'm aware, there is no YEC POV in this article. What there has been, however, are anti-YEC beliefs presented as true. For example, stating that there have been multiple ice ages over millions of years is an anti-YEC (and anti-biblical) POV. All I have done is qualify any matter-of-fact statements that assume an anti-YEC position so that they are not presented as undisputed truth.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:23, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I was mainly addressing the bringing up of the ice ages themselves, the section doesn't seem to be serving a relevant purpose. Separately, labeling everything purported to be older that 6000 years "evolutionary", seems a bit paranoid and fearful, as if the "believer" might be seduced by the evidence if not properly fortified with a warning. We are not serving the broader conservative community by projecting this appearance.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 19:51, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

==Direction of research efforts==

Cut from intro:

:The focus of the science surrounding global warming has been to determine whether it is the result the natural internal variability of the climate, or due to other influences such as solar or human activity.

Is it determining ''whether'' or trying to prove ''that'' the recent warming trend is man-made? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:It is supposed to be the former, but has become a religion so certain that its issue is urgent and that its thesis will ultimately prevail, that some of the WG1 authors are willing to suppress contrary evidence perhaps seeing it as a mere blip in the road and to exploit general ignorance of the subject with simplistic fear mongering.

:Some of it is simple denial, if you had spent two and a half years and millions of dollars of computer time, would you want your "projections" of the future climate based on GHG scenerios relegated to a mere intellectual exercise by a simple study such as Roesch's (see [[Climate model]]). The models are 5 or 10 years away from being accurate enough to attribute and project a 0.75W/m^2 energy imbalance. There is the distinct possibility that 5 or 10 years from now, they will still be 5 or 10 years away. --[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 19:44, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Global warming

2007-03-14T15:33:08Z

Orion Blastar: /* Conflicting Opinions/Data */

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

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

== Scientific background ==

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate.<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref>

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

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

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

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

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Mars' polar caps are melting.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm</ref> Yet there is no proof of life on Mars.<ref>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05052_mars_claim.html</ref> Therefore one can conclude that Mars' global warming is not caused by lifeforms. Global warming on Mars is caused by solar activity from the sun, which might hint at the cause of global warming on Earth.<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html</ref>

Al Gore is considered a leading expert on global warming because of his film. Some say that Gore backs the Kyoto treaties, although this was not the case in his earlier political career as Vice-President when he blocked the Kyoto treaties.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref> Some argue that Al Gore does not follow his own advice.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Some argue that Al Gore is not qualified to talk on scientific issues because he lacks a science degree.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref>
Some would argue that Al Gore damages the credibility of global warming because of these things.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

Pro-global warming reports in many cases do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref> This causes some scientists to remain skeptical.

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-14T15:31:24Z

Orion Blastar: /* Al Gore and politics */

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

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

== Scientific background ==

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate.<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref>

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

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

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

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

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Mars' polar caps are melting.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm</ref> Yet there is no proof of life on Mars.<ref>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05052_mars_claim.html</ref> Therefore one can conclude that Mars' global warming is not caused by lifeforms. Global warming on Mars is caused by solar activity from the sun, which might hint at the cause of global warming on Earth.<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html</ref>

Al Gore is considered a leading expert on global warming because of his film. Some say that Gore backs the Kyoto treaties, although this was not the case in his earlier political career as Vice-President when he blocked the Kyoto treaties.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref> Some argue that Al Gore does not follow his own advice.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Some argue that Al Gore is not qualified to talk on scientific issues because he lacks a science degree.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref>
Some would argue that Al Gore damages the credibility of global warming because of these things.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-14T15:30:21Z

Orion Blastar: /* The conservative view */

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

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

== Scientific background ==

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate.<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref>

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

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

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

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

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Mars' polar caps are melting.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm</ref> Yet there is no proof of life on Mars.<ref>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05052_mars_claim.html</ref> Therefore one can conclude that Mars' global warming is not caused by lifeforms. Global warming on Mars is caused by solar activity from the sun, which might hint at the cause of global warming on Earth.<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html</ref>

Al Gore is considered a leading expert on global warming because of his film. Some say that Gore backs the Kyoto treaties, although this was not the case in his earlier political career as Vice-President when he blocked the Kyoto treaties.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref> Some argue that Al Gore does not follow his own advice.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Some argue that Al Gore is not qualified to talk on scientific issues because he lacks a science degree.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref>
Some would argue that Al Gore damages the credibility of global warming because of these things.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-14T15:27:22Z

Orion Blastar: /* Conflicting Opinions/Data */

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

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

== Scientific background ==

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate.<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref>

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

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

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

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

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Mars' polar caps are melting.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm</ref> Yet there is no proof of life on Mars.<ref>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05052_mars_claim.html</ref> Therefore one can conclude that Mars' global warming is not caused by lifeforms. Global warming on Mars is caused by solar activity from the sun, which might hint at the cause of global warming on Earth.<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html</ref>

Al Gore is considered a leading expert on global warming because of his film. Some say that Gore backs the Kyoto treaties, although this was not the case in his earlier political career as Vice-President when he blocked the Kyoto treaties.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref> Some argue that Al Gore does not follow his own advice.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Some argue that Al Gore is not qualified to talk on scientific issues because he lacks a science degree.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref>
Some would argue that Al Gore damages the credibility of global warming because of these things.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-14T15:26:18Z

Orion Blastar: /* Conflicting Opinions/Data */

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

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

== Scientific background ==

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate.<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref>

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

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

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

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

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Mars' polar caps are melting.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm</ref> Yet there is no proof of life on Mars.<ref>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05052_mars_claim.html</ref> Therefore one can conclude that Mars' global warming is not caused by lifeforms. Global warming on Mars is caused by solar activity from the sun, which might hint at the cause of global warming on Earth.<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html</ref>

Al Gore is considered a leading expert on global warming because of his film. Some say that Gore backs the Kyoto treaties, although this was not the case in his earlier political career as Vice-President when he blocked the Kyoto treaties.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref> Some argue that Al Gore does not follow his own advice.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Some argue that Al Gore is not qualified to talk on scientific issues because he lacks a science degree.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref
Some would argue that Al Gore damages the credibility of global warming because of these things.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-14T15:23:35Z

Orion Blastar: /* Al Gore and politics */

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

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

== Scientific background ==

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate.<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref>

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

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

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

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

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Mars' polar caps are melting.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm</ref> Yet there is no proof of life on Mars.<ref>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05052_mars_claim.html</ref> Therefore one can conclude that Mars' global warming is not caused by lifeforms. Global warming on Mars is caused by solar activity from the sun, which might hint at the cause of global warming on Earth.<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-14T14:41:22Z

Orion Blastar: /* Conflicting Opinions/Data */ Added Mars global warming

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

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

== Scientific background ==

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate.<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref>

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

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

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

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

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Mars' polar caps are melting.<ref>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm</ref> Yet there is no proof of life on Mars.<ref>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/feb/HQ_05052_mars_claim.html</ref> Therefore one can conclude that Mars' global warming is not caused by lifeforms. Global warming on Mars is caused by solar activity from the sun, which might hint at the cause of global warming on Earth.<ref>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-14T14:35:57Z

Orion Blastar:

== Biased Line ==

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

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

(that he has problems trying to give away)

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

== Points ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== The whole article ==

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

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

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

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

Global warming

2007-03-14T14:33:16Z

Orion Blastar: /* Al Gore and politics */

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

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

== Scientific background ==

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Despite the popularity of the film, experts claim it has flaws and stifles debate.<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref>

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

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

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

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

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-14T14:30:44Z

Orion Blastar: /* Al Gore and politics */

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

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

== Scientific background ==

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

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

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

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

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-14T14:30:23Z

Orion Blastar: /* Al Gore and politics */

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

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

== Scientific background ==

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD
that was reviewed by experts and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

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

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

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

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-14T14:28:42Z

Orion Blastar: /* Biased Line */

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-14T14:27:57Z

Orion Blastar: /* The whole article */

== Biased Line ==

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

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

(that he has problems trying to give away)

See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== The whole article ==

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

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

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

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-14T14:27:13Z

Orion Blastar: /* Did you know... */

== Biased Line ==

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

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

(that he has problems trying to give away)

See Dave3172's comment above, this editorial has the same effect. The implication is that the film won't be seen by anyone. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, the film has been very popular and its success will somewhat stifle true debate of the issue.--[[User:Jasonhc|Jasonhc]] 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Points ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== The whole article ==

The whole thing is a politically motivated hack job. What on earth does Global warming have to do with religion that would lead to such pap passed off as fact on this site?

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

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

Global warming

2007-03-13T00:18:18Z

Orion Blastar: /* The Liberal view */ Small L

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

== The liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

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

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

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-13T00:16:32Z

Orion Blastar: /* Al Gore and politics */

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

The behaviors and actions of Al Gore and other politicians seem to show a so called "political warming", based on all of this evidence.

== The Liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

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

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

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T20:58:33Z

Orion Blastar: /* Source #16 */

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T20:57:21Z

Orion Blastar: /* Source #16 */

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T20:49:28Z

Orion Blastar: /* Biased Line */

Global warming

2007-03-12T20:46:05Z

Orion Blastar: /* The Liberal view */ Added current death threats against skeptics and scientists who don't believe in global warming, moved bottom paragraph to top.

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

== The Liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref>

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref> Some are even given death threats by pro-global warming scientists and advocates.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

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

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using older data collected for the theory, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Christianity

2007-03-12T19:25:04Z

Orion Blastar:

While it is true that the ''Roman'' Catholic Church might only refer to one rite of Catholicism, the schismatic Orthodox are not Catholic. Also, it is not merely the "original" Christian Church, but the only one, but the "original" semantics are tolerable. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
: I think that Baptists, Mormons, Protestants, Presbyterians, Jehovah Witnesses, Non Denominationals, etc will all argue that there is more than one Christian Church, and that they all don't belong to the Catholic Church and follow the Pope. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Christianity

2007-03-12T15:27:47Z

Orion Blastar: /* See also */ Because there is more than one Christian Church and the Catholic Church was the original one, no offense to Orthodox, Baptist, or Protestant etc Christians

'''Christianity''' is a [[religion]] that follows the teachings of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]], as described in the books of the [[New Testament]]. It is currently the world's largest religion, with over two billion members. Some forms of Christianity posits that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ as their personal lord an savior will end up in hell. This means that at least two-thirds of the people alive today will go to hell.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html</ref> Other forms say that [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] is the ultimate judge of who goes to Heaven or Hell.<ref>http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/second-coming-of-christ.htm</ref>

== Beliefs ==
Christians believe that [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] died for their sins and rose from the dead three days after dying. Because of this Christians believe that they must be "born again" spiritually by confessing their sins, taking [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] as their personal lord and savior, and trying not to sin again.

Not all Christians and Christian denominations share the same set of beliefs. According to a Harris poll from 2003 <ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref> 99% of all American Christians believe in God, 96% in the resurrection of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]], 93% in [[Heaven| Heaven]], 93% in the [[Virgin Birth|virgin birth]], 92% in survival of the soul after death, 82% in [[Hell|Hell]], 50% in [[Ghosts|ghosts]], 27% in [[Astrology|Astrology]] and 21% in [[Reincarnation|reincarnation]]. Note, that the latter two beliefs are in opposition to the religous dogma of many Christian [[Christian denominations|denominations]].

== Controversy ==
Some Christians, mostly fundamentalist Christians believe that [[abortion]], [[homosexuality]], sex out of marriage, and the theory of evolution are wrong. This has caused political problems. It should be noted that fundamentalist Christians are the minority.

== See also ==

*[[Roman Catholic Church]] (the original Christian Church)
*[[Christian apologetics]] (Defenses of Christianity)
*[[Conservative Christianity]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[Islam]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]

Global warming

2007-03-12T02:30:38Z

Orion Blastar: /* Global warming advocacy sites */ less offensive term

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

== The Liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref> The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref> They are also trying to silence the critics, as outlined in the first part of this section.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

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

== Conflicting data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Pro-global warming scientists claim that the record freezing temps are caused by global warming. citation needed

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the profit by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-12T02:28:27Z

Orion Blastar: /* Al Gore and politics */ spell check

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

== The Liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref> The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref> They are also trying to silence the critics, as outlined in the first part of this section.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

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

== Conflicting data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Pro-global warming scientists claim that the record freezing temps are caused by global warming. citation needed

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the scam by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-12T02:28:07Z

Orion Blastar: /* Al Gore and politics */ Adding Koyto preface text link

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

== The Liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref> The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref> They are also trying to silence the critics, as outlined in the first part of this section.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

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

== Conflicting data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Pro-global warming scientists claim that the record freezing temps are caused by global warming. citation needed

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the scam by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-12T02:26:40Z

Orion Blastar: /* History */

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

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

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

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

== The Liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref> The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref> They are also trying to silence the critics, as outlined in the first part of this section.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

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

== Conflicting data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Pro-global warming scientists claim that the record freezing temps are caused by global warming. citation needed

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the scam by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

George W. Bush

2007-03-12T02:03:02Z

Orion Blastar: /* Economic issues */

[[Image:George_w_bush.jpeg|200px|right|]]
'''George Walker Bush''' (born 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1996-2001) and has served as the [[Republican]] [[President of the United States of America]] since 2001. Campaigning heavily on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html</ref>, He won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2000. Democratic contender [[Al Gore]] initially conceded defeat on the night of the election, but then contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case ''Bush v. Gore''.

In 2004, George W. Bush won reelection by a popular margin of tens of votes, including a 300,000 vote (5%) victory<ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref> in the State of Florida where the outcome had been so close in 2000. Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] quickly conceded defeat the day after the election.

For many months after John Kerry conceded the outcome of the 2004 election to George W. Bush, some American [[liberals]] continued to claim that the election had somehow been stolen by voter fraud. citation needed But have so far failed to prove so in a court of law.

In 2006, the Democratic Party narrowly won control of both Houses of Congress, leaving the final two years of the Bush Administration in a state of [[divided government]].

== Foreign policy ==
George W. Bush has spent most of his Presidency focusing on foreign policy issues, namely the war on terror in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the USA. As part of the fight against terrorism, he has instituted regime changes in the countries of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]]. On January 10, 2007, he said "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable ... Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me".<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558652/</ref> He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region.

Many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound.

== Economic issues ==
Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/20/05ceoland.html]</ref>. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth" currently.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref>

== Family ==
George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

George W. Bush

2007-03-12T02:02:32Z

Orion Blastar: /* Economic issues */

[[Image:George_w_bush.jpeg|200px|right|]]
'''George Walker Bush''' (born 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1996-2001) and has served as the [[Republican]] [[President of the United States of America]] since 2001. Campaigning heavily on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html</ref>, He won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2000. Democratic contender [[Al Gore]] initially conceded defeat on the night of the election, but then contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case ''Bush v. Gore''.

In 2004, George W. Bush won reelection by a popular margin of tens of votes, including a 300,000 vote (5%) victory<ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref> in the State of Florida where the outcome had been so close in 2000. Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] quickly conceded defeat the day after the election.

For many months after John Kerry conceded the outcome of the 2004 election to George W. Bush, some American [[liberals]] continued to claim that the election had somehow been stolen by voter fraud. citation needed But have so far failed to prove so in a court of law.

In 2006, the Democratic Party narrowly won control of both Houses of Congress, leaving the final two years of the Bush Administration in a state of [[divided government]].

== Foreign policy ==
George W. Bush has spent most of his Presidency focusing on foreign policy issues, namely the war on terror in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the USA. As part of the fight against terrorism, he has instituted regime changes in the countries of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]]. On January 10, 2007, he said "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable ... Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me".<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558652/</ref> He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region.

Many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound.

== Economic issues ==
Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/20/05ceoland.html]</ref>. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth."<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref>

== Family ==
George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

George W. Bush

2007-03-12T01:59:42Z

Orion Blastar:

[[Image:George_w_bush.jpeg|200px|right|]]
'''George Walker Bush''' (born 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1996-2001) and has served as the [[Republican]] [[President of the United States of America]] since 2001. Campaigning heavily on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html</ref>, He won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2000. Democratic contender [[Al Gore]] initially conceded defeat on the night of the election, but then contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case ''Gore v. Bush''.

In 2004, George W. Bush won reelection by a popular margin of tens of votes, including a 300,000 vote (5%) victory<ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref> in the State of Florida where the outcome had been so close in 2000. Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] quickly conceded defeat the day after the election.

For many months after John Kerry conceded the outcome of the 2004 election to George W. Bush, some American [[liberals]] continued to claim that the election had somehow been stolen by voter fraud. citation needed But have so far failed to prove so in a court of law.

In 2006, the Democratic Party narrowly won control of both Houses of Congress, leaving the final two years of the Bush Administration in a state of [[divided government]].

== Foreign policy ==
George W. Bush has spent most of his Presidency focusing on foreign policy issues, namely the war on terror in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the USA. As part of the fight against terrorism, he has instituted regime changes in the countries of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]]. On January 10, 2007, he said "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable ... Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me".<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558652/</ref> He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region.

Many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound.

== Economic issues ==
Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/20/05ceoland.html]</ref>. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth."<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref>

== Family ==
George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

George W. Bush

2007-03-12T01:56:59Z

Orion Blastar:

[[Image:George_w_bush.jpeg|200px|right|]]
'''George Walker Bush''' (born 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1996-2001) and has served as the [[Republican]] [[President of the United States of America]] since 2001. Campaigning heavily on the notion that the United States should not be in the business of nation-building<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/transcripts/u221003.html</ref>, He won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in 2000. Democratic contender [[Al Gore]] initially conceded defeat on the night of the election, but then contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case ''Gore v. Bush''.

In 2004, George W. Bush won reelection by a popular margin of tens of votes, including a 300,000 vote (5%) victory<ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref> in the State of Florida where the outcome had been so close in 2000. Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] quickly conceded defeat the day after the election.

For many months after John Kerry conceded the outcome of the 2004 election to George W. Bush, some American [[liberals]] continued to claim that the election had somehow been stolen by voter fraud.

In 2006, the Democratic Party narrowly won control of both Houses of Congress, leaving the final two years of the Bush Administration in a state of [[divided government]].

George W. Bush has spent most of his Presidency focusing on foreign policy issues, namely the war on terror in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the USA. As part of the fight against terrorism, he has instituted regime changes in the countries of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]]. On January 10, 2007, he said "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable ... Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me".<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558652/</ref> He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region.

Many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound.

Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/20/05ceoland.html]</ref>. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth."<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-05-08-mart-usat_x.htm</ref> Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/economy</ref> Bush works with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref>

George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biographies]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T01:40:42Z

Orion Blastar: /* Point 4 */

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T01:22:27Z

Orion Blastar: /* Profit Motive */

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T01:18:54Z

Orion Blastar: /* FYI */

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T01:17:12Z

Orion Blastar: /* Source #16 */

Global warming

2007-03-12T01:05:16Z

Orion Blastar: /* The Liberal view */

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Therefore, the phrase has also come to apply to
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

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

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

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

== The Liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref> The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref> They are also trying to silence the critics, as outlined in the first part of this section.

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

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

== Conflicting data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Pro-global warming scientists claim that the record freezing temps are caused by global warming. citation needed

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the scam by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-12T01:03:57Z

Orion Blastar: /* The Liberal view */

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Therefore, the phrase has also come to apply to
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

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

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

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

== The Liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather nor control it.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref> The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

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

== Conflicting data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Pro-global warming scientists claim that the record freezing temps are caused by global warming. citation needed

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the scam by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T01:02:23Z

Orion Blastar: /* Profit Motive */

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T00:52:15Z

Orion Blastar: /* Source #16 */

Global warming

2007-03-12T00:50:57Z

Orion Blastar: /* The Liberal view */

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Therefore, the phrase has also come to apply to
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

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

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

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

== The Liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, one cannot experiment with the weather.<ref>http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm</ref> The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

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

== Conflicting data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Pro-global warming scientists claim that the record freezing temps are caused by global warming. citation needed

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the scam by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T00:48:57Z

Orion Blastar: /* Profit Motive */

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T00:43:42Z

Orion Blastar: /* Profit Motive */

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T00:42:40Z

Orion Blastar: /* Source #16 */

Global warming

2007-03-12T00:42:14Z

Orion Blastar: /* The Liberal view */

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Therefore, the phrase has also come to apply to
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

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

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

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

== The Liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, or use statistics to prove the hypothesis and the reports use the z-score test instead of the t-score test when the data does not fit the bell curve, which is a statistical error. The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref><ref>http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf205.htm</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

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

== Conflicting data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Pro-global warming scientists claim that the record freezing temps are caused by global warming. citation needed

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the scam by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Global warming

2007-03-12T00:40:36Z

Orion Blastar: /* The Liberal view */

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

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

== History ==
The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory. Many believe global warming is simply a liberal talking point, aimed at shackling profitable oil and power companies, forcing them to pursue a "green" agenda that environmentalists agree with. The phrase really includes three separate theories.
:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.
:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.
:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Therefore, the phrase has also come to apply to
:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

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

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

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

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

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.

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

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

In fact, Al Gore does not even follow his own advice and actually made a lot of money with oil stocks, and uses private jets that pollute CO2, instead of using economical flights that pollute less CO2 or electric trains to promote his books and videos. <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm</ref> Plus Al Gore does not have a science degree, but one in government and an undergraduate degree and not a PHD, and Gore scored low in his science tests and classes. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18</ref> So why is Al Gore the leading expert on global warming if he doesn't even have a degree in science or had good grades in science, rather than a certified and qualified climatologist with the ability to give an academic lecture and follows the scientific method, instead of Gore who just shows pictures.
Furthermore, Gore did nothing to try and halt global warming while he was vice-president, and actually worked with Bill Clinton to reject bills and ideas that would have reduced CO2 and pollution under the Kyoto protocols, that both rejected.<ref>http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://imdb.com/title/tt0497116/usercomments?start=60 An Inconvenient Truth] (already available on DVD (that he has problems trying to give away<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/9262</ref>)) that was reviewed by experts<ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm</ref> and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Details of this can be found at: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

== The Liberal view ==

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology, and work for pro-global warming companies and organizations staffed by liberals. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased.<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. In many cases their reports do not follow the scientific method and don't use a control and experimental group, or use statistics to prove the hypothesis and the reports use the z-score test instead of the t-score test when the data does not fit the bell curve, which is a statistical error. The public is simply asked to read the reports and believe them; however, those in the public and also fellow scientists that analyze the reports and ask questions about them are often silenced and threatened. <ref>http://www.rense.com/general75/oppo.htm</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636</ref><ref>http://www.variousandsundry.com/politics/?p=810</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity. As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, their bias is real and their conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has not produced more CO2, but more CO2 has produced global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.
Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO2 has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO2 influence on temperature. It merely means it wasn't a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earth's distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming
[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

In fact, many scientists promote global warming to scare people into giving away millions to billions of dollars to the companies promoting global warming carbon credits, books, videos, and other products and services.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548</ref> It would appear many businesses are making a large fortune selling carbon credits. <ref>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/survey_of_carbo.php</ref> <ref>http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm</ref> So this appears that profit is a motive in promoting global warming as true.

If global warming is a theory, there is no need to force it on others. Yet the Weather Channel and the AMS was going to decertify weather people who don't strongly agree with the global warming theory. Thus trying to force the theory on others. <ref>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm</ref>

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. citation needed It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. citation needed

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

== Conflicting data ==
Despite global warming scientists making claim that the globe is getting warmer, they cannot explain the colder temperatures like the Russian winters having record low temps, and perhaps Europe will fall into another [[Ice Age]].) <ref>http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=5739&method=full</ref>

The global warming theory may not be a science theory, but seems to be more of a political theory. <ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/97175/Global_Warming_Or_Political_Warming_</ref>

Using the same data, as far back as a hundred or more years ago, scientists argued over if the globe was cooling or warming using the same data. <ref>http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html</ref>

Pro-global warming scientists claim that the record freezing temps are caused by global warming. citation needed

== Global warming advocacy sites ==
Many web sites, forms, blogs, and other web sites exist for promoting global warming and participate in on the scam by the owners or operators or administrators owning oil stock, selling carbon credits, or selling books or videos that benefit from global warming being true. Here is a list of these web sites:
* [http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Promotes An Inconvenient Truth, makes profits off of selling videos and books on global warming.
* [http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items. Claims to be non-political but appears to be political based.
* [http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Uses advertising to make money on promoting global warming. Links to other global warming blogs.
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming. Parent company stands to gain a lot of money by promoting that global warming is true and debunking evidence and proof that it is false.
* [http://www.updebate.org United Political Debate] Administrator has admitted to owning oil stock, and promotes global warming and peak oil theories that drive up his stock. Refuses to allow any videos to be hosted on his site that show evidence or proof against global warming. Argues to death anyone who disagrees with him, and calls them bad names and accuses them of working for the oil companies.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T00:37:31Z

Orion Blastar: /* Source #16 */

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-03-12T00:36:13Z

Orion Blastar: /* Profit Motive */