User Tag List

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

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%
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 81

Thread: Poll on Ideology and Climate change

  1. #51


    Since when do scientists deny alternative theories, dismiss contrary evidence and purport that correlation means causation?

  2. #52
    Senior Member Array Chunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009


    I believe in god, I'm liberal, and I am skeptical of global warming.
    "If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right. But do not care to convince him. Men will believe what they see. Let them see."

  3. #53
    Junior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2007


    Are we using global warming and climate change synonymously here?

    Quote Originally Posted by ubiquitous1 View Post
    Since when do scientists deny alternative theories, dismiss contrary evidence and purport that correlation means causation?
    All the time.

    Seriously, I don't understand why everyone doesn't expect such behaviour from scientists. Science isn't some bastion of reason, it's a set of guidelines for performing experiments, with a few basic philosophical assumptions thrown in. Most scientists specialise in that and are as lacking as anyone else in the other departments.

    Even if we had time to train scientists in abstract maths, philosophy, psychology, all fields of science, and whatever else is involved in interpreting data, we'd still be dealing with the issue that they are human. Like all the political and ethical issues involved in funding and motivation, and the tendency to make mistakes regardless.

    [/off topic rant]

  4. #54
    Senior Member Array vince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    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.
    That's exactly what I was saying.
    I agree as well that there's a transition cost, but one we are forced to make.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Aug 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by vince View Post
    That's exactly what I was saying.
    I agree as well that there's a transition cost, but one we are forced to make.
    Oberon's examples of transition costs involved new technologies which actually increased economic efficiencies in and of themselves. With the possible exception of nuclear power (which has its own set of problems and limitations), existing alternative energy sources are almost always a net economic drain. In the meantime, how do you propose to prevent industries from moving to more economical locations (where greenhouse gas emission per unit of production is higher) after artificially altering so many competitive advantages within high-income liberal democracies? And in the already utopian event that you could even get countries like China or India to even sign up for some theoretically effective concerted global action, what do you propose be done about the inevitable defections from international regulatory regimes by those very same countries? All of these factors will lead to a net increase of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

    Your efforts would be much better spent utilizing the resources made available from a robust high-income economy and attempting to either make "clean" energy sources efficient enough so that people will wish to use them without coercion, or developing inexpensive ways to make fossil fuels less polluting. In this way, more limited international cooperation among high-income liberal democracies might be effective and productive, by facilitating scientific exchanges and handling the necessary compensation/recognition issues that will arise.

  6. #56


    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post

    1/ Do you believe in a personal God or not? Agnostics or Pantheists should vote No.

    2/ Politically speaking, are you rather a conservative or a progressive? Do you vote rather Republican or Democrat? On the Right or on the Left? Libertarians and Anarchists are Right, unless they are Anarcho-syndicalists.

    3/ Do you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)?
    No option for libertarians? Pity.

    No (as defined), Small-l libertarian, no (if this is a yes-or-no question).

  7. #57


    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post

    I expect most Libertarians/Anarchists to be against AGW. It would be logical, knowing their ideological affiliation, especially because fighting the AGW would require strong regulations, and cooperation. Two things that oppose their ethos.
    The bedrock of libertarianism is cooperation. Does "libertarian" mean something different to the French?

  8. #58


    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    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.
    Usually when I encounter Anarchism/Anarchists, they're usually still of the Leftist or even "Post-Leftist" variety.

    Are you familiar with Murray Boochkin, cause he was an Anarchist theorist who was deeply devoted to enviromental issues too("Social ecology" as he called it)?

  9. #59


    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Yeah, but instead of "AGW is likely" I'd put "AGW is happening".

    It just takes thermometer reading, it's not rocket science.

    The real debate is on if humans are causing the sharp leap in temps or not.
    That's what the "A" in AGW means...

    There is also a LOT of debate about the actual temps in past/present...

  10. #60


    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    That's my issue; the evidence is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but the current preponderance of evidence indicates some kind of climate change in which human activities have some existent but indeterminate effect. The degree to which human agency is responsible and the theoretical extent of climate change is very unclear even in the context of a "preponderance of evidence" standard. Moreover, popular policies proposed to deal with the situation (and this is where my opinion is the most certain and strongly felt) would simply not work, and would most likely even make the problem (insofar as it exists) worse by forcing industries to move into countries which emit more greenhouse gasses per unit of production than the high-income countries. If the political right is too quick to discount (relative) scientific consensus regarding man-made climate change, the proposed policy arena is where the left either demonstrates their own tendencies toward faith-based politics or (as is the case for many of those on the far-left) to insert redistributive politics into an issue with reckless disregard for truth or consequences.

    Incidentally, I'm an unbeliever and on the political right (broadly speaking). My technical answer would be that AGW is "likely" since current evidence indicates that its more likely than not, but you can see how such an answer may leave a mistaken impression, so I decided not to vote.
    This is a very good post. I'd add only that a moderately warmer planet would cause far more good than harm (from a human perspective)...

Similar Threads

  1. 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
  2. The urgency of climate change; now funnier.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-12-2011, 09:15 PM
  3. Climate change wont kill all the plants
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-28-2011, 02:59 PM
  4. Fat people causing climate change
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-05-2009, 05:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts