Talk:Environmental disasters caused by liberals
May i suggest a specific example for the animal rights point. As it stands it appears to be hypothetical and not an actual environmental disaster. RobertWDP 11:38, 25 February 2009 (EST)
- Will add two examples right now. GregL 11:45, 25 February 2009 (EST)
- Thank you, but I must ask, what is the standard in use here for judging whether a person or a group of people is liberal? To use it as a catch-all term is suggesting there is a clear distinction when it is best used as a relative term. The views that certain animal rights activists hold may indeed be extreme, but to characterise them as political liberals when they are only expressing their beliefs on a very specific issue seems rather odd to me. RobertWDP 12:04, 25 February 2009 (EST)
- Is there such a thing as non-liberal animal rights activism? Perhaps there are a small percentage but the philosophy itself is clearly linked to liberalism. GregL 12:09, 25 February 2009 (EST)
- If we are to be defining certain environmental disasters as the products of a liberal political perspective then may I suggest that in the interests of balance it is necessary to create an article on conservatism too? RobertWDP 12:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)
- Aren't there already thousands of websites devoted to that, and relatively few devoted to this side of the story? GregL 12:16, 25 February 2009 (EST)
- If we are to be defining certain environmental disasters as the products of a liberal political perspective then may I suggest that in the interests of balance it is necessary to create an article on conservatism too? RobertWDP 12:12, 25 February 2009 (EST)
- Is there such a thing as non-liberal animal rights activism? Perhaps there are a small percentage but the philosophy itself is clearly linked to liberalism. GregL 12:09, 25 February 2009 (EST)
- Thank you, but I must ask, what is the standard in use here for judging whether a person or a group of people is liberal? To use it as a catch-all term is suggesting there is a clear distinction when it is best used as a relative term. The views that certain animal rights activists hold may indeed be extreme, but to characterise them as political liberals when they are only expressing their beliefs on a very specific issue seems rather odd to me. RobertWDP 12:04, 25 February 2009 (EST)
There may well be, but how does it serve the purpose of this site to ignore the other side simply because others are covering it. There are many articles on here that are covered on other websites and personally I do not see this as a good argument against my suggestion. RobertWDP 12:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)
- Well this is "Conservapedia". It is an encyclopedia with a conservative POV. The public is so inundated with the other side from the MSM as it is. GregL 12:43, 25 February 2009 (EST)
- In that case then how does it serve anybody to simply overlook the flip side of such an article. What could be more constructive and truthful than a conservative website listing some of the detrimental impacts that conservative policies have had on the environment. If they are to be ignored here just as you claim that the 'other side' ignores 'liberal' problems then is that not simply using their same tactics? RobertWDP 12:48, 25 February 2009 (EST)
- Well look, if you feel strongly enough that there should be an article on 'Environmental disasters caused by conservatives', you should start one and see how long it lasts. Also, see how much content you can find for such an article. I'm trying to think of a single example and cannot think of one. All the major environmental disasters were either not a direct consequence of political ideology at all (for example, the Exxon Valdez spill was the fault of a ships captain who was drunk), or caused as an unintended consequence of do-gooder liberals. GregL 21:43, 26 February 2009 (EST)
- In that case then how does it serve anybody to simply overlook the flip side of such an article. What could be more constructive and truthful than a conservative website listing some of the detrimental impacts that conservative policies have had on the environment. If they are to be ignored here just as you claim that the 'other side' ignores 'liberal' problems then is that not simply using their same tactics? RobertWDP 12:48, 25 February 2009 (EST)
The trend
Just thought I'd clarify as I don't wish to get into an edit war over semantics. The climate trend for the last 100 years does indeed show a decrease in the average temperature (this is normally shown using a 5-year average). The initial decrease runs from around 1941 to 1948/9. This is followed by a series of relatively small fluctuations such that in the longer context the period of 1950 to around 1975 the trend can be said to have levelled off somewhat at a lower level than the first peak in 1941. However, the rate of increase from 1975 was almost exactly equal to the rate of decrease between 1941 and 1948/9. RobertWDP 12:56, 25 February 2009 (EST)