Difference between revisions of "Double standard"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Removed unsourced statement until source can be found... no indication that one is forthcoming) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*[[Global warming]]: Supporters of the [[Kyoto Protocol]] (an emissions reduction treaty) say that "[[correlation is not causation]]" when scientists point out the dozens of natural [[climate cycles]] linking changes in sunspots to changes in Earth's air temperature. But their argument for a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is based on a single period from 1850 to present in which carbon dioxide levels and air temperatures have risen together. | *[[Global warming]]: Supporters of the [[Kyoto Protocol]] (an emissions reduction treaty) say that "[[correlation is not causation]]" when scientists point out the dozens of natural [[climate cycles]] linking changes in sunspots to changes in Earth's air temperature. But their argument for a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is based on a single period from 1850 to present in which carbon dioxide levels and air temperatures have risen together. | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Political Terms]] |
Revision as of 00:49, April 8, 2008
A double standard is a rule or principle which ought to be applied equally (or in all cases), but which is used selectively to advance a hidden purpose. Conservapedia actively fights double standards.
The history of politics is full of examples of this sort of hypocrisy.
- Global warming: Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol (an emissions reduction treaty) say that "correlation is not causation" when scientists point out the dozens of natural climate cycles linking changes in sunspots to changes in Earth's air temperature. But their argument for a runaway greenhouse effect is based on a single period from 1850 to present in which carbon dioxide levels and air temperatures have risen together.