Merge with Science of global warming? DanH 23:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
good idea
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }You guys are right that there isn't a widespread popular consensus for global climate warming change, but as a conservative I feel like we should try to figure out what is really going on instead of going with the current popular trends. There must be a reason that the National Academy of Science -a non partisan organization- concluded that "a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems", and that 97% of global scientists studying the issue have built a consensus around this idea. While I am still not convinced, I think we need to take a second look at the evidence instead of flatly denying global warming's existence based on the tiny fraction of the world's climate we see in our immediate vicinity. Looking outside and seeing snow and -50 degree temperatures tells us nothing about global climate trends, no matter how easy it might be to lampoon Al Gore when this happens. I do hate that guy though. 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record, no matter how cold your backyard is. As conservatives, I think we need to move toward accepting that there is overwhelming evidence for global warming (or climate change, whatever we want to call it). However, we should advocate market based solutions, like big time tax cuts for American clean energy companies and people who innovate, instead of the crap and trade the libs are trying to shove down our throats! let's do what reagan did, and that is recognize environmental problems and advance free market policy to solve them! common sense people. Moderate , 18 November 2010
I think the problem is that leftists have intertwined the term "global warming" with their evidence-lacking anthropogenic global warming theory; the two terms are incorrectly used together and many times interpreted as meaning the same thing, but they should be separate from each other. Evidence and current data prove that global warming has not occurred since 1995, although warming periods have happened before - these temporary periods of global warming are not due to man-made changes. These are scientific findings based on data which Professor Phil Jones has admitted as fact. Global warming may have happened in the past, but there is simply no scientific data present today that suggests humans are the cause of these natural periods of global warming and global cooling. The anthropogenic global warming theory does, however, present a great opportunity for progressives to force big government policies onto the American people; although, it is my interpretation that such policies are unconstitutional because allowing the government to enforce this environmental agenda via cap and trade is not inline with the principles of limited government. DerekE 14:04, 19 November 2010 (EST) However much we despise liberals and the cap and trade bill, we must also consider the actual merits of the issue. Even if global warming is false--a point I am by no means convinced of--many of the policies that would fight it are also good for the economy, such as tax cuts for clean, sustainable energy companies, including nuclear, as well as targeted tax policy to combat pollutants that we know harm the environment and our health, like smog and smoke from factories. Ending our dependence on fossil fuels should not be dismissed because of disbelief in the notion of global warming, in fact, it should be embraced by conservatives for several reasons. 1. It takes the main source of revenue away from middle-east dictators ($700 B per year according to Sen. McCain), 2. It would help America create new industries and again lead the world in manufacturing cutting edge goods, and 3. It would eliminate the cloud of awful smog sitting above my head right now! Maybe I would be able to see some stars at night for once!. Do you agree that we should pursue a renewable energy, market-based agenda regardless of whatever global warming garbage the liberals try to manufacture?Moderate 17:10, 19 November 2010 (PST) Many centrists are now convinced of Global Frauding. Climategate showed how deep the lies really are. User:Teapartyman You know, it's funny. Very recently, I was on Wikipedia, and I went to the "scientific opinion on climate change" page. It was incredibly biased. it said "the scientific opinion on climate change is that the earth is unequivocally warming", and it didn't even mention anyone who didn't even mention any deniers. That's what I call biased. I wrestled with them for ages, but I couldn't get them to change it, because they were so attached to their ideas. Then, I came here, expecting to find an unbiased site. To my horror, this page is just as biased as Wikipedia, only in the opposite direction. Why is it that all of these encyclopedia's have to be so radically leftist or rightist as to be completely biased? Why can't this page be UNBIASED, and show each side equally? If people think that only showing the RADICAL conservative opinion on climate change is going to make people take this site seriously, they're definitely wrong. -CybersaurRegarding the claim of global warming being a hoax. The definition of hoax is a deliberate deception. The citations after the the articles claims of global warming being a hoax do not in fact support that conclusion. The emails of one scientist do not imply that tens of thousands of climate researchers are deliberately in cahoots to deceive the public. Though the science is woefully incomplete there is no evidence that the research is a hoax. I believe the article would be more credible the word hoax was deleted. Any feedback? CenterK 02:04, 1 July 2013 (EDT)
I just wanted to explain why I deleted the material that was in place on this matter and why I disagree with its reinstatement, rather than getting into an edit war.
Yes there are measurements from other planets that go back several years but that does not constitute a continuous measurement period. The temporal and spatial coverage of such measurements varies each time and is naturally very limited in this respect. Measurements taken relatively close together in time have shown stark differences that cannot simply be said to be climate change but rather are natural short time-scale variations in time and space as you would find if you compared the temperature in the Sahara and the Antarctic on different days and with each other. The data that does exist has not been sufficient for scientists to produce running averages with anything like the reliability of those used for earth. Long-term trends are built using these figures not simply single temperature measurements from irregular times and places. As such it is not possible to make any accurate claims about climate change on these planets within the past few decades based on the available data. RobertWDP 21:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)
Congrats RobertWDP, I love when you follow the rules like that, we want respectable contributors as yourself. I feel that you are knowledgeable on the climate subject. If you say the data is inconclusive (other planets) and therefore cannot be used. I am not convinced. Show me studies that solar system planets have no bearing on Earth climate models, then cite references as proof.--jpatt 22:25, 26 February 2009 (EST) I shall try to elaborate on points Robert has already made. We do not have ice core samples from Neptune or Pluto. We don't have fossil data from Mars or Titan. What data we do have is at best a starting point for further analysis. On Earth we have much more data, and we also have the ability to carry out almost any experiment. As Robert said, what data we do have about the climates of other planets is absolutely useless for establishing a model of any kind. It could be that Mars is undergoing a typical cycle of climate change that is unique to its environment. We don't know. It could be that Neptune is warming because more gasses than normal are collapsing to the center of the planet and releasing heat caused by the friction of the particles rubbing against each other as they fall. We don't know. Premises don't spring from nothing, so we can't make an argument out of facts that we don't have. It is also a bad idea to compare the climates of gas giants with rocky planets: the differences are so extreme that it is hardly worth going over. I'll end by saying this: If common argument is that we don't really understand the Earth's climate, then how are we to know it any better through comparison of environments that we know almost nothing about? Jirby 00:01, 27 February 2009 (EST) I'll add that if ALL our solar system is getting warm at the same time, insufficient evidence? I believe that's the data that was presented, was at least cited. I am all for the truth in this matter. If you have a source, add it but don't delete the point that is countered.--jpatt 00:09, 27 February 2009 (EST) If the entire solar system was warming at the same rate in the same instance (now) then you would have a very compelling case that human impact is far less than originally believed. However, we currently lack those facts if they in fact exist at all. Gas giants are not analogous to rocky planets; reasons for their climate change(s) is an entirely different matter for science to investigate. Also consider that the outer planets receive very little solar energy; the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality. Mars could be warming because it is unable to deflect any appreciable amount of solar energy it receives. We have an atmosphere, and a magnetic shield of sorts to mitigate the influx of solar energy, so if we could take humanity out of the equation, Earth would likely warm at a much lower rate than Mars or any other planets if just due to solar activity alone. The truth is though, that we just don't know. There's no credible way to link the climates of different planets in the fashion this section does. Gaseous planets obviously can't be compared to our own, and the conditions inherent to the other planets open up so many variables that we have no hope of meaningfully comparing them to our own in the near (or even distant) future. What I mean by all this is that you don't really need a cited source (though I accept where the burden appropriately lies) to realize that you can't compare apples to oranges.Jirby 00:31, 27 February 2009 (EST) "the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality" I am disagreeing but I don't know what I am disagreeing about. Sunlight on Pluto is insufficient for solar temperature fluctuations? --jpatt 00:51, 27 February 2009 (EST) Consider the distances involved: Pluto is so far away that the sun would at best appear as a very bright star if you stood on the surface and tried to find it. Granted, Pluto isn't so far away that it receives no solar energy whatsoever, but the amount (inverse square law) is so negligible that you can't ascribe significant weight to it. In fact, Pluto only warms to the point of having a minimal atmosphere after it's orbit changes by almost 3 billion miles. I don't want to run into 90/10 problems, but again I gotta ask: how can we compare Pluto to the Earth, or even Mars to the Earth when they are so different that they are barely similar?Jirby 01:05, 27 February 2009 (EST) The sun is gigantic! [1] --jpatt 01:15, 27 February 2009 (EST) And what's your point?Jirby 14:59, 27 February 2009 (EST) The sun is everything, all encompassing, all powerful and to say comparing planets in our solar system are like comparing apples with oranges, I say hooey! The IPCC hasn't taken into account sun irradiation, solar spots, and a host of other issues. Their findings are the heart of Global Warming Politics. It has already been disproved no matter how many agree to its findings. As YECs correctly point out, you can't just throw seven apples on the floor, all at once, perfectly spaced. Yet, God aligned the planets in our system that way. God controls the destiny of Earth, not man. God tells us it is a sin to worry. Leave mother nature for God to decide. As said in 'Platoon', "We all gotta die sometime." Bot capture guy says what? --jpatt 01:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)So are you telling me that the most extensively studied body in the sky, has somehow been omitted from all studies related to global warming despite the very necessary fact that the sun is probably the most important part of our climate (Being the driving force and all...)? I mean not to sound condescending, but the sun has been factored into every single climate model period because without the sun we don't really have a climate. The verdict? The sun is not the primary causative agent behind global warming. If the sun's output was so high that it was warming Pluto at (for the sake of argument) the same rate as Earth, we'd be dead. So the outer planets no, don't indicate anything about the climates of the inner planets unless it is understood that the outer planets (especially the gas giants) have some analogous variables as the inner planets do.
Also, please note that the IPCC is usually criticized for /understating/ global warming, but it's predictions are still "There is GW, humans activity is the cause." The more nuanced questions of "by how much..." "by what specific behavior..." have yet to be answered, no one disagrees there, but we can't answer those questions if we must continually go back and reassert that what we already know to be true is true.
Also what is perfectly spaced about the planets? Pluto went (back when it was a planet, though I still personally consider it such) from 9th farther to 8th farthest planet depending on when you looked at it. Uranus is helplessly tilted on its side. Saturn's rings are also note stable. What about any of this is perfection? If your idea of perfection is rooted in the tradition of Platonic forms, then I could see your point, but then again always assigning God as the reason why X occurred when we don't currently know only sets up God to fail in the long run when we DO figure it out. If God exists, and I assume he does, he does not exist in such a way that we can view him through a telescope.Jirby 15:18, 5 March 2009 (EST)
This is a typical argument, used by liberals to trick the ignorant. I don't know whether you are a trickster or one of the tricked, but it doesn't matter. The sun's output consists of energy and matter. The energy that heats the earth is infrared light, which is what McDonald's uses to keep the French Fries warm. The matter is called cosmic rays, but these are actually charged particles; they move slower than the speed of light. Variations in the energy output of the sun have little effect on the earth's climate, but variations in cosmic rays have a significant effect. The difference between a sincere person and a liberal liar depends on whether he'll stop saying something after he finds out that it is not true. So, I'll ask you: if someone can prove to your satisfaction that variations in solar output, i.e., cosmic rays, have a greater effect on the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, will you stop saying otherwise? --Ed Poor Talk 11:20, 29 September 2009 (EDT)Again, I shall bring this issue here rather than risk reverting an admin.
Jpatt, you state quite blatantly that Boykoff is biased towards global warming. I have to ask at this point (this is actually a question not an attempt at an insult in case of any apparent ambiguity) if you have read any of his research or actually know where his grants come from? If the answer is no to the latter in particular then such comments as you have added to the article would amount to libel, which it would be virtually impossible for you to defend against. I am familiar with his work and so hopefully can be of some use here. Boykoff's work is not actually so much research on the science of climate change itself. He actually studies how climate change (amongst other things) is portrayed and perceived by politicians, the public, and the media, not to mention the actual climate scientists. As such the funding for such research which generally involves looking at freely available material, mostly newspaper articles, is pretty negligible, especially when compared to actual climate studies that I assume you are referring to. Although I admit I cannot state for certain the actual source of the funding, I would be quite certain it is from a source that specifically funds media research and not actual climate studies. As such, Boykoff is actually studying issues such as possible bias regarding the issues of climate science, especially in politics and reporting and even mentions media bias on numerous occasions. RobertWDP 07:09, 27 February 2009 (EST)
Further, I would request that if my points above are not adequately addressed (i.e. the removal of libellous claims about an individual) then I would instead request that you simply allow me to remove all reference to the person's work rather than have it and him portrayed in such a way. RobertWDP 07:15, 27 February 2009 (EST) Please note that I have now done this. There should be little argument not only due to my points above but also as I added the references in the first place. I am disappointed at te attitude that has been taken by some. RobertWDP 19:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)The grammar and punctuation in the quotation from Obama in the article could be improved.
The ecological movement generally has been described as a white attempt to stop non-whites' industrialising, a middle-class attempt to stop working-class whites' industrialising, an attempt to conjure up salaries for millions of scientists or an emotional substitute for failed socialism.
Edited the section of liberal claims of consensus. There are more groupos than liberals that are claiming consensus on this issue. Moreover, that information seems old, maybe the whole article should be refreshed.
Also, took away the quotation marks from "consesus", otherwise it looks stupid.~~
No only liberals, make the claim that there is consensus. They claim that there is consensus, with other groups but that doesn't make it so. Also, it's better to have quotation marks since then we emphasize that there isn't any real consensus. Finally your spelling, could be improved.
Working on other stuff myself, but thought this may be note worthy for an editor, though its depth and impact is yet to be ascertained:
Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam
"One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO."
Also The Dog Ate Global Warming Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?Daniel1212 09:39, 21 November 2009 (EST)
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640
Here or on the controversy page?Daniel1212 22:47, 21 November 2009 (EST)
Good question, but not an urgent one. We need to start separating the science of global warming from the politics. The "greenhouse effect" is real, but the threat of a runaway greenhouse effect is overhyped, and politicized science has contaminated the educational process. We need to give our series of global warming-related articles an overhaul. --Ed Poor Talk 00:55, 22 November 2009 (EST) This an excellent point. I haven't gone through it fully to check every source, but I did notice the source on the consensus of climatologists about anthropogenic global warming is from 1992, and the results of current polls are almost a full 180 degree change from the ones in the 1992 poll.--Manhattan I'll post the links and such here, so I could hopefully get an edit green-lighted. Heres an article on the survey http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm and hers the survey itself http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf.--ManhattanThere's really no reason for the sections regarding the 'politics' and 'liberal claims of consensus' to come first. It seems appropriate that all of the scientific sections should come first in an article about a scientific issue.
Also, while I understand that many global warming supporters have a liberal inclination, doesn't this seem a bit biased: "Liberal claims of consensus"?JPope 13:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)
No bias on our part. First, it is mostly liberals who claim there is a scientific consensus on whether global warming is more natural or artificial. Secord, the "claim of consensus" is entirely manufactured, contradicting all surveys actually conducted of climate scientists. Less than 1/3 of scientists polled accept any of the key ideas of the Anthropogenic global warming theory. --Ed Poor Talk 21:21, 6 February 2010 (EST)http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/ Good picture that should be public.Daniel1212 20:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)
Cut from intro:
into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of the world by changing the ability of heat to escape the atmosphere. Some gases attributed with causing this effect are produced by industrial and power plants, while many others come from natural phenomena. In addition to atmospheric gas content, many other factors control the earth's temperature, which has its own pattern of heating and cooling. While many climate scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, some computer models designed to predict long term trends fail to predict recent short-term cooling that the Earth is experiencing. [1] Because 1998 was the year of El Nino, a natural phenomenon that occurs intermittently and causes the year in which it occurs to be anomalously hot, the relation of that year to longer trends is unclear. As temperatures have been falling since 1998, increasing doubt is being cast on the validity of global warming claims.We need to distinguish between:
a period of rising world air temperatures a scientific theory about what causes the above what activists mean when they say things like, "Global warming is real"The first is easy enough. It happens when air temperatures go up.
The second requires explaining all the various major theories explaining this. Liberals hate this, because this gives something for conservatives to compare with reality (see independent review).
The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --Ed Poor Talk 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)
? Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009Cut from intro:
... leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claimsFirst off, peer review is not the same as independent review. Journal editors have a system of peer review that they use to help them decide whether or not to publish an article. However, that decision can be affected by the bias of the editor or publisher, such as choosing only to publish articles that support a given theory.
Independent review, on the other hand, is not related to any specific journal or editor. It is the ongoing process whereby all the scientists in the world constantly look at each other's work. If they find errors, they say so right away - whether in private or in public. Science advances when scientists use elements of the scientific method such as ensuring that every hypothesis is falsifiable (see also reproducible results).
The entire problem with the last 10 or 20 years of "global warming" advocacy is that contrary views have been suppressed (see intelligent design and "Expelled"). An abuse of the peer review system has undermined independent review. --Ed Poor Talk 11:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)
Someone added a clearly incorrect "fact", with attribution to a "History Encyclopedia" which turned out to be Wikipedia in disguise:
If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6 °F during the 20th Century. Growing Signals of Global Warming U.S. History EncyclopediaWhoever did this should not be allowed to contribute to this article any more. F = Fahrenheit, and C = Centigrade. The IPCC conclusion was for centigrade (or Celsius as non-Americans like to say). --Ed Poor Talk 07:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)
Hey, Ed....What do you think of moving this to Global Warming Conspiracy? Just an idea, in the interest of accuracy. --?K/Admin/Talk 08:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)No, TK, we will always need an article on global warming, because it is "real" - in the sense of occurring naturally over and over throughout history. Every ice age has been followed by an interglacial period when temperatures go back up again.
We must separate the independently reviewed science from the politically motivated distortions, which is a confusing and complicated task. Science is hard enough, but when you have 90% of the mainstream media controlled by liberal "advocacy journalists" the job is ten times as hard. --Ed Poor Talk 14:03, 6 February 2010 (EST)
Splitting the article between complementary "Climate Change" and "Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy" articles (Or Man-caused? Anthropogenic is just too long) might help. DouglasA 14:08, 6 February 2010 (EST) I don't like the term climate change, if it's nothing more than a euphemism for AGW. About 4 years ago, when I almost had the pro-AGW pov-pushers stopped at Wikipedia, they decided to change the terminology. This had the desired effect of confusing everybody and bought them more time. There are only two things going on here: Scientific theories about what makes the earth's atmosphere get warmer and colder Attempts to promote treaties and taxes, based on these theories We don't need a lot of different articles. "Global warming" should be the main science article - split into sub-articles for ease of writing; "Global warming controversy" should be about the political clash between the two main sides: liberals and their ilk who support AGW theory because they want the Kyoto Protocol, carbon taxes, etc. & conservatives along with a few brave independent scientists who oppose the AGW because it's contradicted by the facts.Various claims have been made that this or that recent year is the "warmest" in recent memory. Then, this claim is used to argue that the global warming theory must be true. This is in the same category as claiming that there has never been a time when there was open, ice-free water at the North Pole, or that the polar bear population is decreasing, or that some famous glacier or snow-capped mountain has less ice.
None of these claims - even if true - would have any bearing on whether human beings are heating up the atmosphere too much (see global warming theory). But shouldn't liberals admit their theory is nothing but hot air, if any of these claims are disproven? Of course not, the public can't concentrate on the science long enough! The liberals just quickly change the subject to another claim.
Anyway, this article would probably be a good place to rebut all these claims. Who wants to help? --Ed Poor Talk 21:17, 6 February 2010 (EST)
I know that many of us are skeptical about global warming and that's great, we should cover all the reasons for skepticism in this article. But many Conservatives do believe in Global Warming. I'm one of them. Newt Gingrich is another. So I don't see this as a thing where anyone who believes NASA is a liberal. I want lower taxes, I want smaller government, but I think we can lower pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil at the same time and both are good for our country. Lindsay graham said as much himself, and I think McCain did too.
I think we need to balance this article, not between libs and Conservatives, but between Conservatives who are convinced about global warming and Conservatives who aren't.Mpauline 14:32, 11 February 2010 (EST)
You're absolutely right that not all conservatives believe in global warming. (And I'm surprised you didn't cite Margaret Thatcher next to Gingrich!) And I don't think anybody can be against reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I believe everybody agrees: the less reliant we are on the Middle East, the better. But the recent ClimateGate scandal should increase your doubt somewhat, I'd hope, about global warming. More and more, evidence is coming forward which demonstrates that this has all been either an outright fraud or an extraordinary exaggeration of regular and natural climate cycles. Nevertheless, if you would like to propose any large-scale edits to the article, you're welcome to! Post your suggested additional section here, for review by the most senior administrators, and perhaps they will be added to the article. JacobB 14:38, 11 February 2010 (EST)Jacob, I understand why you might think that and I respect your opinion. I, personally, think that the day we put a man on the moon was about the best proof ever that this is the best country that's ever been. I love our space program, I love our science and technology, and I believe that science comes up with the best answers about things like this.
There was a scam at the institute in England and the IVPP is exaggerated, you are right. Gore is a dope, no question. But NASA has been taking thousands of satellite and weather station measurements and they say the CO2 level is going up, the earth is warming, and that it's caused by the extra CO2 we are burning. It's millions of tons of coal and oil and natural gas we burn every year. I understand about interglacial periods and so on, but even then, even if it was natural, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere would be our best option for saving our agriculture and avoiding a lot of trouble.
Even Rick Warren, the guy who wrote the book that my wife gave me that made me accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, agrees that we need to do something about it.Mpauline 14:59, 11 February 2010 (EST)
I agree with JacobB. I think any claims made prior to ClimateGate on Global warming should be invalid until/unless more recent, similar claims are again said by the same politicians who previously thought Global warming was caused by humans. It's one thing to agree with what the "consensus" of scientists have claimed over the last decade as possibly true, but it doesn't seem fair or right to suggest that the same people still have the same opinion of the consensus after it's found their "science" could be less than accurate. DerekE 15:03, 11 February 2010 (EST) Mpauline, please! I'm also a huge supporter of the space program. So was President Bush, and now Obama's killing the budget for it! We clearly agree on many issues, and if you're conservative you'll find you have common ground with basically everybody here. When it comes to climate change, we could argue all day - but let's not! Instead, put on this talk page below the section you wish to add to the article, and people with far more authority than me will review your proposed edit, and we'll reach an outcome that we're all pleased with. You know the old saying, "You cut, I chose?" for reaching compromise? Well, first you have to cut, ie, show us your proposed edit. JacobB 15:07, 11 February 2010 (EST)You got it Jacob. Thanks. I'll put something up soon. Derek, that's a fair point, but the new NASA report came out after the Climategate scandal. They were making exaggerated claims over there in England, but I believe that our American capabilities are way better. NOAA and NASA's new measurements say the oceans got hotter in the last ten years than they've ever measured.Mpauline 15:31, 11 February 2010 (EST)
NASA and NOAA won't do any better, given the current administration's penchant for buying into man being the cause of climate change. The Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly, over thousands of years. That is natural, put in motion by God, and if someone believes they can do anything to change those cooling and warming periods, they are nuts. Simply put, if it is God's plan that we cease to exist, that is it. If His plan is for us to survive He will be the cause of mankind's salvation, not man. If one accepted what atheists believe to be true, I still would say man's puny attempts to change forces on a scale millions of times greater than us would be doomed to failure...if we all went off fossil fuels tomorrow, perhaps we would succeed in slowing such warming by a few years. What then? --?K/Admin/Talk 15:52, 11 February 2010 (EST)OK, TK, I respect that, and many other Conservatives believe that. But that is not what all Conservatives believe. Myself and many other Evangelical Christians believe that God very well might expect us to clean up our own mess. I assure you that NOAA and NASA know full well about natural cycles in the climate. They know full well that there was no ice at the poles in the Paleocene. They have taken natural cycles into account, but they say the CO2 levels and temperatures are going up much faster than they do during natural cycles, and they know this from air bubbles trapped in ice cores. JacobB above is right, President Bush supported NASA and NOAA just like Reagan did. And, you know, I know that liberals believe in global warming, and I don't like agreeing with them, but even they can be right about one thing. I mean, Al Gore probably believes that 2+2=4, and I'm not going to say the answer is 5 just to disagree with him on every single thing. I know I won't convince you and I'm already convinced by teh evidence I've seen. We both have good points. This article should reflect the range of opinion among Conservatives on the subject, don't you think?Mpauline 17:12, 11 February 2010 (EST)
You completely mistake what I believe. We do agree that presenting the facts is important, however. --?K/Admin/Talk 20:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)Article is locked, but this could be included in this section: “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot..” “Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers. . . all point to a radical change in climate conditions and . . . unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone . . . Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones . . . while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.” - Washington Post, Nov. 2, 1922, based upon a report from the National Weather Review. [2] Daniel1212 23:06, 3 March 2010 (EST)
The first picture a reader sees in this article is Composite antarctic NASA.jpg, a map showing Antarctica with colors indicating temperature changes. The page where the image originally was, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36736, shows a scale, in which even pale red represents a (slight) increase in temperature. The article uses the picture with a caption including the words "Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right". Just from looking at the picture, it's obvious that even the east half is mostly red.
The picture doesn't seem especially relevant to the first section of the article, anyway.
The article might be better off using another picture like Las-vegas-snow-storm-12-2008-christmas.jpg. It's a lot easier to see that picture's meaning in a quick glance, and we could still use the Antarctica picture lower in the article for another purpose.
I don't believe that man-made global warming is happening either, but this picture isn't the first one I'd choose for an article debunking the overblown claims. DouglasL 19:20, 6 January 2011 (EST)
I have not been following the man made global warming issue in recent weeks (post Climategate) and what the possibly effects could be, but I can tell you that it is going to be a hard sell in America because: America has a down economy that seems will continue to get worse plus Obama's re-election is a long shot (Republican candidates are opposed to supporting the global warming issue), Americans prefer big cars and big houses, America has a strong oil lobby, has public schools which are doing a lousy job of teaching math/science, plus Americans value personal choice more than most nations. I don't see much happening on this issue over the next 5 years in terms of any changes. Conservative 03:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
Apparently we have 50 months left[3]. Can't see it making much difference though. And even if it did in most countries the US and China don't seem very positive. I suppose it is just time to be thankful that we don't live in Kiribati. (unless of course we do, in which case just hope we can emigrate somewhere) Cmurphynz 09:35, 1 October 2012 (EDT)Why is there a section about beneficial effects of global warming ? Am I the only one who find it odd ? There is 2 options:
The most plausible is that global warming is a huge hoax, therefore, there is absolutely no interest to speak about any possible beneficial effects The other option is that global warming is real. In this case, the few beneficial effects are completely shadowed by the threat of sea level rise which may threaten millions of human lives.--PhilipN 18:12, 10 January 2012 (EST)
Those are not the only 2 options. It is possible that global warming is not a hoax, but is also not anthropogenic. It is also possible that global warming is real, but its effects will not be nearly as devastating as liberal scientists claim. --AaronT 18:30, 10 January 2012 (EST) I agree that these are not the only 2 options but that does not change the point. If global warming is real but not anthropogenic, we are in my 2nd case. If global warming is not as devastating as liberal scientists claim, we are either in the 1st case (if there is not sea level rise, I think we won't notice the difference) or in the 2nd (if we notice the difference, there is a huge probability that sea level will rise).--PhilipN 18:43, 10 January 2012 (EST) The two cases I gave are not mutually exclusive. But you probably are correct, that none of the beneficial effects mentioned in the article can occur without severe negative effects as well. --AaronT 18:53, 10 January 2012 (EST) I think that having a section to talk about benefits could be useful because (I'm pretty sure) it is true about the lengthened growing season and it also seems likely that less people would die from freezing to death. However, I do agree that it is strange not to include anything about the drawbacks, because that is almost an accepted concept in our current culture; i.e. most people equate global warming with negative effects. I would like to point out that the sea level rise, even according to the liberals, won't happen until at least 100 years from now. I propose that the benefits of global warming section be merged with the Reported effects of Climate Change section, so we can keep it all together. Also, I think the entire Reported effects of Climate Change section is one of those subtle vandalism thingys, usually written by a liberal to make Conservapedia look bad. I didn't want to delete it in case someone was actually trying to be serious. Scottma 12:50, 2 February 2012 (EST)Your question sounds like a rhetorical one, i.e., an assertion that warmer weather isn't beneficial. Please write an article section on the benefits and drawback of warmer weather. For example, how does it affect crop growth or human health? Do more or fewer people die in warmer climates than in colder climates. (Why do retirees tend to move south say, from, New York or Boston to Florida? Are they knowledgeable or ignorant about the connection between warmth and longevity?) --Ed Poor Talk 14:44, 31 December 2012 (EST)
Ed, such an article section would be quite lengthy. While retirees may well move to Florida to find a more salubrious climate, we must also take into account the vastly-increased incidence of certain diseases in tropical climates. Yellow Fever, for example, is all but unheard-of in northerly climates in this day and age, but still kills many people every year in parts of Africa and South America. This is, in large part, because the weather never grows cold enough to kill off the mosquitoes that spread the disease. Given the many factors that would need to be taken into account, I fear that such a section, properly researched, would dwarf the rest of the article. Perhaps a separate article would be more appropriate? --Benp 14:57, 31 December 2012 (EST)I want to delete the section on sunspot activity, as it is misguided and certainly wrong. The article is dated and the prediction made by the scientist, Willie Soon, that the Earth would start to cool after 2009 did not come to pass (2010 was the hottest year ever recorded). On 1/30/12, NASA released an article [1] which refutes the claims made by Willie Soon. Of course, I don't want to remove it if some people still think it could be still useful unless every agrees that it should be removed.
Basically, the deal is that Dr. Soon thought sunspots contributed significantly to global temperature. Here are links to NASA's website showing average global temperature [2] and sunspot activity [3]. You can see that the two do not correlate, especially in the last couple years. Strikingly, sunspot activity is at the lowest its been in about 100 years, and the global temperature is the highest its been in at least 100 years. Scottma 17:57, 1 February 2012 (EST)
? http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/nsfc-eeb013012.php ? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ ? http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/I found a good website with some facts about the GW hoax, don't know if it will pass as a good source but deserves a good look...[1]User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 12:20, 31 December 2012 (EST)
I put this at the top of the page under a different title, but nobody pays attention to that part:
You know, it's funny. Very recently, I was on Wikipedia, and I went to the "scientific opinion on climate change" page. It was incredibly biased. it said "the scientific opinion on climate change is that the earth is unequivocally warming", and it didn't even mention anyone who didn't even mention any deniers. That's what I call biased. I wrestled with them for ages, but I couldn't get them to change it, because they were so attached to their ideas. Then, I came here, expecting to find an unbiased site. To my horror, this page is just as biased as Wikipedia, only in the opposite direction. Why is it that all of these encyclopedia's have to be so radically leftist or rightist as to be completely biased? Why can't this page be UNBIASED, and show each side equally? If people think that only showing the RADICAL conservative opinion on climate change is going to make people take this site seriously, they're definitely wrong. -Cybersaur
PS: I am in no way trying to defend global warming ideology. I too think it is ridiculous.
Can someone add a section on the Marcott reconstruction, including his statement that it "cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes"?
And has anyone else besides me noticed that this admission contradicts the NY Times analysis? --Ed Poor Talk 13:38, 7 April 2013 (EDT)
I would just like to show you these two. I don't know about you, but these seem pretty accurate.
Here. And here.
You can claim politics and yell libtard, but that wont help change those two.
0 comments:
Post a Comment