Should one be scared that so many of the letters on topics like these are obvious trolls? Or rather, be more scared that maybe they aren't :-)

A message a few dozen back had the insult "meathead" in the title. What precisely could the intent be in choosing to emphasize this? That the writer is equivalent to Archie Bunker? Literally, of course, we're all meatheads. The capabilities of meat are amazing, that's why vegetarians show respect by not eating it.

The same message asserted bad facts in the service of worse logic:

"The human race's maximum output of energy into the environment is a mere 1% of what the sun puts out that hits the Earth."

A little rummaging around - and yes, arithmetic - shows that the human power generation is around 0.009% of insolation integrated over the disk of the Earth. I'm actually surprised that it is as high as this. The sun puts out a prodigious amount of energy per second. The Earth intercepts a large amount, if small fraction. And then the Earth reradiates the incoming solar energy as heat. A very close balance exists between the incoming and outgoing energy budgets - else the Earth's surface would either melt or freeze. Is thermodynamics also "only a theory"?

Our energy usage has nothing to do with the greenhouse argument. Rather it is a question of side effects. Our generation of energy releases byproducts such as carbon dioxide. These affect the delicate balance between the incoming solar energy and the outgoing reradiated heat energy. It is indeed the Sun's rays that will melt the ice caps - but that doesn't make the result natural.

The Earth's thermostat is being adjusted by our actions...but then, folks don't understand their home thermostats, either :-)

An interesting - but false - argument:

"There is not significantly more carbon on the planet than there was say six billion years ago or so."

True. (Ignoring the typo of 6Gy for 4.6Gy.)

"There is a set ammount of carbon dioxide that was ever in the atmosphere, and there is a set ammount of carbond dioxide that can ever be released back into the atmosphere."

False. Your argument assumes that biological carbon (extant + fossil) all originated in carbon dioxide from the ancient atmosphere.

There is much more carbon in the crust of the Earth than has previously been in the atmosphere. Carbon is a common element in the cosmos - and a relatively common one on Earth. Google + arithmetic gives the mass of carbon in the Earth's crust as being about twice the mass of the entire atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (remember, only one of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases) makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere. Thus there is about 10,000 times as much carbon in the crust as currently in the atmosphere.

Much of the sequestered carbon was converted from minerals in ancient soils or oceans. We are engaged in releasing vast fossil holdings of carbon that were converted not only from ancient air, but from ancient minerals as well.

The sky isn't just falling, the Earth is rising to meet it.

Just imagine the sheer terror of every aspect of God's Creation demonstrated by people willing to write their own encyclopedia rather than learn to read source material critically. More to point - rather than teach their children to embrace an open-minded worldview.

The one shared characteristic of all parts of the religious and political spectrum is that we are skeptical of the motives of others. The conservapedia appears to be an attempt to control all information so as to be able to avoid raising home schooled children to be skeptics. This demonstrates a fear *of* the next generation, not only *for* the next generation.

God may have given us a book - or several books - apparently designed to cause unending strife. But we were, most definitely, also given a self-consistent universe and the intellect to decipher its mysteries. One may be confident that documents inconsistent with the evidence strewn so richly across the world will collapse under their own weight.

The most entertaining part of the conservapedia are the offhand comments. About Walt Disney and his wife, we helpfully learn "unlike many Hollywood marriages, theirs lasted for over 40 years".

And don't just try the obviously searches like "evolution" and "liberal", e.g.:

"A neoconservative (colloquially, neocon) is a former liberal who calls himself a conservative, or a former conservative who caters to political views of the media."

or rather accurately about "freedom fries":

"A good example of a political fad that had a short life. During the First World War, some Americans called sauerkraut 'liberty cabbage' in an attempt to disassociate themselves with all things German."

...of course, there is no indication that it was precisely the conservatives, neo and otherwise, who fueled the fad.

Purpose. The issue is purpose.

Intelligent design is about purpose. Not about methods. God is omnipotent. Right? So God could choose to use natural selection. Right? So all the amazingly consistent evidence supporting evolution is no challenge to anybody's personal relationship with the Almighty. A religion endangered by evidence for evolution would be a tepid affair indeed. Who are we to seek limits on God's choice of tools?

And language is about purpose. What is the purpose of a forum such as this? Posturing and puerile insults?

What possible purpose can nonbelievers have to complain about a book that suggests a path for the devout to embrace a modern worldview? Rather, politely applaud.