Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-10-07T17:51:27Z

SayaSan: /* Needed Entry */

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

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

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Controversy over the facts ==

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==

The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace

== References ==

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". {{unsigned|Gantczak}}

== Ed Poor ==

[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The Anthropgenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that natural forces account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conseveratives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for Kyoto Protocol or are partisan supporters of Democratic Party candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US federal funding is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==
In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
**This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work.
**It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

<blockquote>
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated. 

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising. 

'''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."''' 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. 

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.''' 

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." '''The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.''' 

'''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Are the images really necessary?==
Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with Ed... ==

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

== Needed Entry ==
In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}

*No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

Medusa

2007-10-07T17:41:31Z

SayaSan: Removing what was obviously the work of someone exposed to deceit; that was the Lernean Hydra

[[Image:Medusa.gif|thumb|250px|Medusa]]
'''Medusa''' in [[Greek mythology]] was one of the [[Gorgon]]s. Legends said that she was the fairest of the beautiful [[Gorgon sisters]]- yet also the [[vain]]est. By means of deflating Medusa's [[ego]], the [[goddess]] [[Athena]] changed the belle's gorgeous golden tresses into a mass of lethal [[snake]]s. Nevertheless, Medusa still continued to spend hours in front of the mirror, even though suitors shied away, because she was possessing of many more attractive qualities as well. Outraged at Medusa's [[narcissism]], Athena decided to punish all of the Gorgon sisters. She exiled them to a deserted, isolated island. Then she put an additional curse on them: if a mortal ever looked at them straight in the eyes, s/he would turn to stone. Over the years spent alone in their new domain, they eventually turned into [[monster]]s, with characteristics such as long, yellow [[fang]]s, clammy skin, and monstrous size. After many brave heroes had been reduced to statues by her lethal glare, Medusa was eventually slain by [[Perseus]], who avoided looking at her eyes by instead observing her through her reflection in Athena's reflective [[shield]]. He succeeded in beheading the monster, and, when she died, [[Pegasus]], the winged horse, flew out of her neck.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Greek Mythology]]

Talk:Burma

2007-09-26T21:22:14Z

SayaSan:

The source for the addition of info to this article is here: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html]. This could be a good place to start when adding basic info, then building it up to contain the current events happening now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:21, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Nice work - I'll put some of my own stuff up tomorrow. Godspeed! --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

User talk:PhilMcAvity

2007-09-26T21:20:33Z

SayaSan: New page: {{welcome|sig=~~~~}} P.S. - You're quite right about the whole Christians in Burma thing. The large Christian Karen groups (and Muslim Rohingya groups) get treated very badly, but we don'...

{{welcome|sig=[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]] 17:20, 26 September 2007 (EDT)}}

P.S. - You're quite right about the whole Christians in Burma thing. The large Christian Karen groups (and Muslim Rohingya groups) get treated very badly, but we don't here about it in the West, because we have a stereotype of Buddhists as peaceful. Well done!

Burma

2007-09-26T20:57:30Z

SayaSan: citations - we have 'em!

'''Myanmar''' (or '''Burma''') is a country in southeast [[Asia]].
The capital is Naypyidaw.

The current government lost the last election but refused to give up power. In September 2007, monks and other protesters paraded through the streets for over 9 days before the government ordered them to disperse.

It is severely censured by groups from [[ASEAN]] <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3085819.stm </ref> and [[Amnesty International]] <ref>http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/mmr-summary-eng</ref> for its appalling [[human rights]] abuses, ranging from forced labour, to a campaign of oppression and what some claim amounts to [[genocide]]<ref>http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs3/Horton-2005.pdf</ref>.

The country contains most of the [[Karen]] people, an ethnic group which has been fighting for independence since 1949.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Asian Countries]]

Debate:Right and wrong in Myanmar

2007-09-26T20:47:14Z

SayaSan: /* The monks are more right */

{{debate}}

Which side is more "right" in the September 2007 Myanmar Monk March conflict?

==The monks are more right==

I have to go with the Monks. Remember the [[Boston Massacre]]? A bunch of stone throwing patriots fighting a dictatorial government? Sound familiar? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'm (unsurprisingly) going with the monks, and the whole NLD/NCGUB peace movement. See below. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

::Why are the monks more right? Do you support a coup against the dictatorship, or what?

::: For reasons stated elsewhere, it's not a coup as such - there's a case for it being the quelling of a hostile insurgency on the SPDC's part. Still, I would say that a peaceful overthrow of the SPDC, followed by a return to democracy, would be desirable, yes. I would ideally have as little bloodshed of the prodemocracy groups as possible, but even so, that would be dwarfed by the numbers who die in Burma every year in the countryside. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

==The government is more right==

==Analysis of Ed's points==

''Amnesty International has a well-deserved reputation for partisanship. They vigorously oppose "dictatatorships" which aren't particularly hostile to America, while largely turning a blind eye to much worse human rights violations perpetrated by America's enemies. Not a good place to start.''

OK, if we go by a purely utilitarian calculus, then maybe AI's concentration on Guantanamo isn't the best, but that's a whole different argument. The issue is that letter writing campaigns '' '''do''' ''have an effect, and, if you want evidence that they're not all against America, I wrote five letters in my local student AI group today - one to Burma, one to Syria, one to China, one to Total (the oil company, also re:Burma), and one to Venezuela. Fairly cosmopolitan, I would say.

''How about defining a human rights standard? For example, do you think people everywhere ought to have the right to "petition the government for redress of grievances" as we do in America? Should everyone everywhere have the freedoms of speech, press and religion? Should our outrage and disgust toward a goverment be in proportion to how many people's rights they violate, or should we just magnify a few cases to advance the liberal agenda?''

It doesn't get as much press attention as the whole Aung San Suu Kyi business, but that's because there isn't much press attention at all on Burma.

OK, witness for the prosecution - a fairly big ''wrong'' on behalf of the SPDC. [http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs3/Horton-2005.pdf Here]. Genocide? More likely than you think. Even if that didn't stick, you could throw pretty much all of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court at them - what's going on there is terrible.

Also, I think that your left/right divide over Burma is not quite right. They're more like fascists, than anyone else - it's the worst elements of each.

'So that our great primary aim of our single Burman race to last forever we will meet with success, and for the greater national race to progress and develop, the easiest method is an aggressive campaign to
[[Image:Amnesty international1.jpg|150px|right|thumb| Click to enlarge]]
dilute racial blood by taking foreign women who are not Burman ... Burman comrades-should we not be able to take such action, the Shan will endanger us in the future. Therefore, our Burmese race must be untied in this. We must take a firm hold of whatever situation is available to us. Even if it should come about that we, individuals, have permanently to abandon the Shan State, we must leave behind our own flesh and blood, our progeny and those related to us. Those women who are Shans and minorities must become in the end such that whenever a Burman offers money or makes advances to them, they are easily available almost as if they were prostitutes.'

Sound familiar? --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

'''Response on AI:''' To the right is Amnesty internationals record of criticism from the period of 1995–1998. Notice how much criticism goes towards democratic/free governments as opposed to dictatorships and closed countries.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 16:26, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Tellingly short time period, not so relevant now, and anyway, are you going to use that to get yourself out of the issue now? Remember, when you do an AI campaign, it's not in favour of AI, it's in favour of the people that you write about in your letters. Are you going to deny the people of Burma your support over ''this''? --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*You're the one who started the digression about [[Amnesty International]]. Tash and I are only responding to that side point. Now that he and I have won there, shall we return to what we were talking about before? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:36, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:Since when are Turkey (not allowed in the EU because of gross human rights violations) and Egypt (Brutally cracks down on free speech) and Pakistan 'free and democratic'? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:40, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Ah, but, by a cunning means, it was my point all along. All the media have stuff on the Burma conflict; could we spend our time better by actually doing something that helps the monks? Anyway, there's a whole lot of non-AI stuff up there. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

User talk:SayaSan

2007-09-26T20:41:56Z

SayaSan:

<nowiki>*pulls block lever*</nowiki>

Gah, I keep forgetting! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]]

:You are welcome, if you can help me undo my accidental conservative bias.

:So far, most of what I've seen is emotionalism, calls for banning, etc. Can we make concrete suggestions?

:Do we need a unprotected page for [[Protest in Myanmar]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:38, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds like a good idea. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 15:50, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

You wrote:
:These police have ''already'' attacked the monks for peaceful protest. They've ''already'' used [[tear gas]], and [[baton charge]]s against people who were peacefully protesting.

Does this mean that using tear gas and baton charges against civilians is ''always'' evil? (Note: not trying to create a new thread, just asking for clarification before I reply on talk main page or on the debate page). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:39, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
: I'm tempted to rule this one out under teh [[Categorical Imperative]], but that's always tricky. They certainly are wrong against peaceful protesters, and there's no question that they are wrong here. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

Debate:Right and wrong in Myanmar

2007-09-26T20:39:57Z

SayaSan: /* Analysis of Ed's points */

{{debate}}

Which side is more "right" in the September 2007 Myanmar Monk March conflict?

==The monks are more right==

I have to go with the Monks. Remember the [[Boston Massacre]]? A bunch of stone throwing patriots fighting a dictatorial government? Sound familiar? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'm (unsurprisingly) going with the monks, and the whole NLD/NCGUB peace movement. See below. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

==The government is more right==

==Analysis of Ed's points==

''Amnesty International has a well-deserved reputation for partisanship. They vigorously oppose "dictatatorships" which aren't particularly hostile to America, while largely turning a blind eye to much worse human rights violations perpetrated by America's enemies. Not a good place to start.''

OK, if we go by a purely utilitarian calculus, then maybe AI's concentration on Guantanamo isn't the best, but that's a whole different argument. The issue is that letter writing campaigns '' '''do''' ''have an effect, and, if you want evidence that they're not all against America, I wrote five letters in my local student AI group today - one to Burma, one to Syria, one to China, one to Total (the oil company, also re:Burma), and one to Venezuela. Fairly cosmopolitan, I would say.

''How about defining a human rights standard? For example, do you think people everywhere ought to have the right to "petition the government for redress of grievances" as we do in America? Should everyone everywhere have the freedoms of speech, press and religion? Should our outrage and disgust toward a goverment be in proportion to how many people's rights they violate, or should we just magnify a few cases to advance the liberal agenda?''

It doesn't get as much press attention as the whole Aung San Suu Kyi business, but that's because there isn't much press attention at all on Burma.

OK, witness for the prosecution - a fairly big ''wrong'' on behalf of the SPDC. [http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs3/Horton-2005.pdf Here]. Genocide? More likely than you think. Even if that didn't stick, you could throw pretty much all of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court at them - what's going on there is terrible.

Also, I think that your left/right divide over Burma is not quite right. They're more like fascists, than anyone else - it's the worst elements of each.

'So that our great primary aim of our single Burman race to last forever we will meet with success, and for the greater national race to progress and develop, the easiest method is an aggressive campaign to
[[Image:Amnesty international1.jpg|150px|right|thumb| Click to enlarge]]
dilute racial blood by taking foreign women who are not Burman ... Burman comrades-should we not be able to take such action, the Shan will endanger us in the future. Therefore, our Burmese race must be untied in this. We must take a firm hold of whatever situation is available to us. Even if it should come about that we, individuals, have permanently to abandon the Shan State, we must leave behind our own flesh and blood, our progeny and those related to us. Those women who are Shans and minorities must become in the end such that whenever a Burman offers money or makes advances to them, they are easily available almost as if they were prostitutes.'

Sound familiar? --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

'''Response on AI:''' To the right is Amnesty internationals record of criticism from the period of 1995–1998. Notice how much criticism goes towards democratic/free governments as opposed to dictatorships and closed countries.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 16:26, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Tellingly short time period, not so relevant now, and anyway, are you going to use that to get yourself out of the issue now? Remember, when you do an AI campaign, it's not in favour of AI, it's in favour of the people that you write about in your letters. Are you going to deny the people of Burma your support over ''this''? --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*You're the one who started the digression about [[Amnesty International]]. Tash and I are only responding to that side point. Now that he and I have won there, shall we return to what we were talking about before? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:36, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Ah, but, by a cunning means, it was my point all along. All the media have stuff on the Burma conflict; could we spend our time better by actually doing something that helps the monks? Anyway, there's a whole lot of non-AI stuff up there. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

Debate:Right and wrong in Myanmar

2007-09-26T20:31:03Z

SayaSan: /* Analysis of Ed's points */

{{debate}}

Which side is more "right" in the September 2007 Myanmar Monk March conflict?

==The monks are more right==

I have to go with the Monks. Remember the [[Boston Massacre]]? A bunch of stone throwing patriots fighting a dictatorial government? Sound familiar? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'm (unsurprisingly) going with the monks, and the whole NLD/NCGUB peace movement. See below. --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

==The government is more right==

==Analysis of Ed's points==

''Amnesty International has a well-deserved reputation for partisanship. They vigorously oppose "dictatatorships" which aren't particularly hostile to America, while largely turning a blind eye to much worse human rights violations perpetrated by America's enemies. Not a good place to start.''

OK, if we go by a purely utilitarian calculus, then maybe AI's concentration on Guantanamo isn't the best, but that's a whole different argument. The issue is that letter writing campaigns '' '''do''' ''have an effect, and, if you want evidence that they're not all against America, I wrote five letters in my local student AI group today - one to Burma, one to Syria, one to China, one to Total (the oil company, also re:Burma), and one to Venezuela. Fairly cosmopolitan, I would say.

''How about defining a human rights standard? For example, do you think people everywhere ought to have the right to "petition the government for redress of grievances" as we do in America? Should everyone everywhere have the freedoms of speech, press and religion? Should our outrage and disgust toward a goverment be in proportion to how many people's rights they violate, or should we just magnify a few cases to advance the liberal agenda?''

It doesn't get as much press attention as the whole Aung San Suu Kyi business, but that's because there isn't much press attention at all on Burma.

OK, witness for the prosecution - a fairly big ''wrong'' on behalf of the SPDC. [http://www.ibiblio.org/obl/docs3/Horton-2005.pdf Here]. Genocide? More likely than you think. Even if that didn't stick, you could throw pretty much all of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court at them - what's going on there is terrible.

Also, I think that your left/right divide over Burma is not quite right. They're more like fascists, than anyone else - it's the worst elements of each.

'So that our great primary aim of our single Burman race to last forever we will meet with success, and for the greater national race to progress and develop, the easiest method is an aggressive campaign to
[[Image:Amnesty international1.jpg|150px|right|thumb| Click to enlarge]]
dilute racial blood by taking foreign women who are not Burman ... Burman comrades-should we not be able to take such action, the Shan will endanger us in the future. Therefore, our Burmese race must be untied in this. We must take a firm hold of whatever situation is available to us. Even if it should come about that we, individuals, have permanently to abandon the Shan State, we must leave behind our own flesh and blood, our progeny and those related to us. Those women who are Shans and minorities must become in the end such that whenever a Burman offers money or makes advances to them, they are easily available almost as if they were prostitutes.'

Sound familiar? --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

'''Response on AI:''' To the right is Amnesty internationals record of criticism from the period of 1995–1998. Notice how much criticism goes towards democratic/free governments as opposed to dictatorships and closed countries.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 16:26, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Tellingly short time period, not so relevant now, and anyway, are you going to use that to get yourself out of the issue now? Remember, when you do an AI campaign, it's not in favour of AI, it's in favour of the people that you write about in your letters. Are you going to deny the people of Burma your support over ''this''? --[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

Debate:Right and wrong in Myanmar

2007-09-26T20:12:04Z

SayaSan: sorry, edit conflicts