Difference between revisions of "Talk:Science of global warming"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(AEI and Exxon-Mobil)
Line 512: Line 512:
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.''
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)

Revision as of 21:04, 21 May 2007

! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

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. --~ Sysop-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.--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. --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.--Jasonhc 22:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

How about I change it to (some schools have rejected free copies of it)? --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? 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. Britinme 11:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


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 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. --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. 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.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. --Orion Blastar 19:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
It reads better now, thanks for the edit. --Orion Blastar 21:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)


The British Conservative party was in the news today concerning climate change.Thisisausername 17:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT) [1]

Thanks it has been added. It is good to represent both sides of the issue for a fair and balanced look. --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?--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. --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.--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. --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.--Dave3172 20:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Blanking is vandalism, but you are lucky I gave you the benefit of the doubt. --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.--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. --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. --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?--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. --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.--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? --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. --Orion Blastar 10:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

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

Did you know...

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

Yes, you read that correctly: MARS. It has been documented by NASA, National Geographic, the Mars Global Observatory, etc. Now what could be causing the retreat of the Martian ice caps? There's no factories there, no automobiles, no cows expelling gasses in the fields. I want to hear the excuse for it from the global warming supporters as to why the ice caps on Mars are retreating. Hint: there's only one answer. 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. --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. 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. --Britinme1:15, 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. --Orion Blastar 10:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


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. --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. --~ Terry 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. --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. --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.) --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. --~ Terry 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. --~ Terry 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:[2]

The Tempest [3]

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 [4]

An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Can’t Give Junk Science Away: [5]

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype: [6]

"...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.”


Al Gore Header

  • Is it really necessary? --~ Terry 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? --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..... --~ Terry 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 Jim Hansen, who will never live down his "scary scenarios" remark. --Ed Poor 18:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I just added a line to the Gore header, to balance it some. --~ Terry 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. --Hojimachongtalk 16:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Exactly! And be sure to let either Hoji or me know if another revert war starts. ;-) ---~ TerryK Talk2Me! 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)


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. --~ TerryK 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? --~ TerryK 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 [8] has been nominated for deletion. [9] If you are a Wikipedia editor, please read the article and vote. RonCram 00:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong question to ask here. --~ TerryK 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. --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. 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. ;-) --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). 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. --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.Jaques 19:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
This article is a completely unsourced diatribe. Auld Nick 12:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


We need some pictures--Kádár Tamás 04:32, 24 April 2007 (EDT) Admin: Can we use wikipedia.org pictures? --Kádár Tamás 04:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

yes if it's public domain.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: Global warming edit history and Ice Age edit history.) 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 --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. 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. 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.--TimS 08:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

See also: 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. --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 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. RSchlafly 15:58, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I aded references. Java 17:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Not all references tell the truth. --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? Java 17:24, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
for 1 thing anything talking about "the last 420,000 years" is wrong. --CPAdmin1 17:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
I am a little vexed. Do you want to put me on? 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! --Sysop-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 Ages stay in the introductory section? 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. RSchlafly 20:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Cool, Roger. Open it, edit it, do whatever. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Okay, I unlocked it. Please keep science and politics separate. RSchlafly 01:00, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I love the nice accurate new version. I give it five minutes before it's reverted.--Britinme 17:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

    • Yeah, it didn't last long, which is stupid because it was much more correct.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. 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. :-) --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. 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. Timppeli 18:42, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
A trustworthy article should give scientific facts, don't you agree? --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. 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? --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? --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. JoshuaZ 18:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I've asked you twice for proof of this. I ask you here one last time. --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. JoshuaZ 18:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Found atleast 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. 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." 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. --Ed Poor 19:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)


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? --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. --Ed Poor 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I would prefer Kelvin. --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...). 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. 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? 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. Human 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. 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. --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. 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. --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)." --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 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.[10] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --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. --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? --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. --Ed Poor 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Like James Hansen - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[11][12][13]
Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?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. --Ed Poor 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

--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. [14][15] 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. [16] 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? 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. --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? 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. --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. --Mtur 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Strong criticism against one of the sources

One of the citations: [17] 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 [18]. 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. 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: [19] 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. Timppeli 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)


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. --Hojimachongtalk 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. [1].

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.) --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.--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). --Reginod 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--Reginod 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism Edit

I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--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. 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? Human 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

........--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Creationary scientists believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following Noah's Flood. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, 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. 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. 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? 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"Bohdan
Remember, liberal sources don't count! --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....


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


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. ;-) 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. 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. ;-) 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. 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. Learn together 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --Sysop-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. - Rob Pommertalk 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. Learn together 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Secular scientists 'believe'

This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have experimental evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--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.
Philip J. Rayment 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
How about "Secular scientists think"? 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. 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. --Sysop-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?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. --Ed Poor 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


Cut from article:

... contrasts with the effects predicted for anthropogenic global warming.

What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --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. 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. 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. 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. DanH 03:09, 21 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 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. --Gulik3 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
  1. Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[20]