User Tag List

View Poll Results: Pick the option that fits the most, please...

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Believer / Politically Right / AGW is not proved

    5 14.29%
  • Unbeliever / Politically Right / AGW is not proved

    2 5.71%
  • Believer / Politically Left / AGW is not proved

    2 5.71%
  • Unbeliever / Politically Left / AGW is not proved

    3 8.57%
  • Believer / Politically Right / AGW likely

    1 2.86%
  • Unbeliever / Politically Right / AGW likely

    5 14.29%
  • Believer / Politically Left / AGW likely

    7 20.00%
  • Unbeliever / Politically Left / AGW likely

    10 28.57%
First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 81

  1. #31
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Fiscal conservative, agnostic, human contribution to climate change likely. Just have no idea how much. I try not to read press releases, and try to find the actual abstracts and conclusions if I can.

    Do remain very cautious to new information and extreme predictions though due to the polluted political and media atmosphere [har har].



  2. #32
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    I'm socially liberal and fairly moderate in most other ways. It would be extremely difficult to deny that humans have contributed to global warming, but what it isn't clear (at least to me) is just how much responsibility we bear. Since scientists don't seem to be clear on the issue, either, we have a choice between going on as if nothing is amiss, cutting back on technological progress in the hopes of slowing down pollution, and redirecting our research down paths focused on combating the problem. The first option--going on as if nothing is wrong--stands a good chance of leading to catastrophe, a small chance of suppressing a depression, and an even smaller chance of leading to technology that will help us fight climate change. The second option--cutting back on technological progress--is the equivalent of sitting down and waiting to see what happens at a time when our survival could depend on action. The final option--developing alternative energies and whatnot--will sap the economy in the short run, but in the long run it's likely to pay us back with technological advancements and useful alternative energies.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  3. #33
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Unless you are an Anarcho-syndicalist, most people who claim to be Anarchist usually are considered to be on the Right field of political spectrum.
    I never knew Bakunin and Kropotkin were considered right-wingers. I can see how Proudhon could fit into what you're saying.

  4. #34
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I never knew Bakunin and Kropotkin were considered right-wingers. I can see how Proudhon could fit into what you're saying.
    Should you have read me more carefully, my dear Peguy, you would have noticed I was only talking of so-called "modern" Anarchists.
    And yes, those modern disciples of Rothbard are sometimes very far away from historical figures of Anarchism.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  5. #35
    Senior Member vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Where's the "Scientist / Politically Left / AGW is not likely but a damn fact" option ?

  6. #36
    Senior Member vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nunki View Post
    Since scientists don't seem to be clear on the issue
    That's really a very popular & handy misconception. I have never seen an entire branch of people agree on one and the same issue, in my life. The general consensus among scientists however is crystal clear.

    I also do not agree that new technologies / alternative energies will sap the economy. What IS hurting the economy AND the environment is stubornly holding on to old economic ways and principles.

  7. #37
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince View Post
    I also do not agree that new technologies / alternative energies will sap the economy. What IS hurting the economy AND the environment is stubornly holding on to old economic ways and principles.
    It's not the new technologies and/or alternative energies that will sap the economy. Every innovation that survives does so because it increases efficiency, solves a problem, or opens up completely unforseen opportunities.

    However, there is always a transition cost, and it can be considerable. In the horse and buggy days, for example, dirt and gravel roads were sufficient in rural areas, and the better cities had cobblestone streets. Cars and trucks were great innovations, but they required a very expensive upgrade in infrastructure across the board.

  8. #38
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    But it's normal. I'm a strong Atheist, I vote Green party, and I've worked on the consequences of AGW in my academic field. At least I'm honest.
    What does being in favor of enviromentalism have to do with a belief or disbelief in AGW?

    One can be in favor of being environmentallly aware and responsible without signing onto the whole package of some Greenism as lockstep quasi religious dogma you must accept 100 percent or reject 100 percent.

  9. #39
    Senior Member ubiquitous1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    What does being in favor of enviromentalism have to do with a belief or disbelief in AGW?

    One can be in favor of being environmentallly aware and responsible without signing onto the whole package of some Greenism as lockstep quasi religious dogma you must accept 100 percent or reject 100 percent.
    Exactly.

  10. #40
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    AGW has become a shibboleth. If you don't say it right, you can't be part of the club.

Similar Threads

  1. Why do people on the right tend to think climate change is fake?
    By asynartetic in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 275
    Last Post: 10-11-2017, 12:06 AM
  2. Donald Trump Speaks Out on Climate Change Hoax
    By Xann in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-14-2016, 07:06 PM
  3. Neil deGrasse Tyson on Climate Change [VIDEO]
    By Mal12345 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-14-2014, 10:55 AM
  4. Poll on substance abuse problems and mental health
    By prplchknz in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 04-11-2014, 05:10 PM
  5. The (U.S) National Academies Videos and Reports on Energy and Climate Change
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-2012, 10:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO