There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Environmentalism/Archive1
Real Vs. Woo section[edit]
Can someone expand this to actually include REAL environmentalism? Otherwise, it looks more like an opinion rather than a compare and contrast, and I think (when it comes to woo and pseudscience) that showing the difference is of utmost importance.The Goonie 1 23:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- +1. Two years later, this article is still shit.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the whole "real", and "disputed" breakdown is a bad idea.
- Few things in this category are so black and white and almost all involve some balancing of priorities in respect of things like: the needs of human populations vs the effect on the environment and whether we are looking short term, long term or very long term.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nature woo and greenwashing are firmly in the woo category, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I wasn't talking about the "woo" category - just the "real" and "disputed".--BobSpring is sprung! 06:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nature woo and greenwashing are firmly in the woo category, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Incandescent vs. Fluorescent[edit]
The mercury issue isn't quite as clear cut as presented, as the coal used for the incandescent lights releases, I am told, more mercury than the light contains. Imarcuson (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)