Politics and Global Warming

[uke2se]

This poll is supposed to show if political persuasion is related to the personal stance on climate science and global warming in particular. This thread is not for discussion about global warming - for that, we have a moderated thread in the science sub-forum.

In order to minimize quibble over semantics, the word "accept" in the poll questions mean "accept as the current scientific consensus", and the phrase "act on" means "take any form of global, regional, local or personal action in order to minimize the effects of global warming".

Should you accept the conclusions of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report but not believe we should act on this knowledge, please write your reasons in a response instead.

 

[Francesca R]

"Liberal" and "conservative" mean different things outside the USA. Well, liberal does. Your poll question seems USA-centric.

Also see: Left-Right politics as a predictor of AGW stance

 

[uke2se]

"Liberal" and "conservative" mean different things outside the USA. Well, liberal does. Your poll question seems USA-centric.

Also see: Left-Right politics as a predictor of AGW stance

I suppose it is USA-centric, but the major support for AGW "skeptics" come from the US, so I think it's appropriate.

When it comes to political persuasion, what counts is what you consider yourself anyway.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Aridas]

Can't vote for a friend of mine, but... it's worth saying that he's conservative and doesn't believe in AGW. At all.

That said...

"I do not accept the conclusions of the fourth IPCC Assessment Report and don't believe we should act on our knowledge of Anthropogenic Global Warming." seems rather biased to me. I'm fairly sure that those who don't accept AGW would put is differently. For example, "act on the claims" would be much less biased.

 

[The Dark Lord]

I don't know exactly what this report says but I doubt that scientists have just made global warming up. I am not going to start driving a Prius though.

 

[uke2se]

That said...

"I do not accept the conclusions of the fourth IPCC Assessment Report and don't believe we should act on our knowledge of Anthropogenic Global Warming." seems rather biased to me. I'm fairly sure that those who don't accept AGW would put is differently. For example, "act on the claims" would be much less biased.

That is true. I was operating with simple word substitution in order to save time, but it did come out biased. As I can't edit the OP, please read it as "don't believe we should act on the claims of AGW".

 

[Beerina]

[X] Accept, and nothing should be done.

It is ludicrous to economically hobble ourselves when tech advancement over this time period, 100-300 years, will effortlessly swamp the problem.

Imagine the murderous idiocy of people in the year 1800 hobbling themselves.. Would they have helped anything?

Would living today, thanks to their kind hearts and forward-thinking awesomeness, with, say, 1900 or 1950 (or 1850) technology today with a pristine environment be anything short of genocidal w.r.t. actual length and quality of life, and on a scale Hitler and Stalin together couldn't have hoped for?



Stop desiring rationales for massive government controls, you mass-murdering "useful idiots".

 

[uke2se]

[X] Accept, and nothing should be done.

It is ludicrous to economically hobble ourselves when tech advancement over this time period, 100-300 years, will effortlessly swamp the problem.

Imagine the murderoue idiocy of people in the year 1800 hobbling themselves.. Would tey have helped anything?

Would living with, say, 1900 or 1950 (or 1850) technology today with a pristine environment be anything short of genocidal w.r.t. actual length and quality of life, and on a scale Hitler and Stalin together couldn't have hoped for?



Stop desiring rationales for massive government controls, you mass-murdering "useful idiots".

You accept the conclusions and feel nothing should be done then? You do understand what this implies, don't you?

 

[DC]

[X] Accept, and nothing should be done.

It is ludicrous to economically hobble ourselves when tech advancement over this time period, 100-300 years, will effortlessly swamp the problem.

Imagine the murderous idiocy of people in the year 1800 hobbling themselves.. Would they have helped anything?

Would living today, thanks to their kind hearts and forward-thinking awesomeness, with, say, 1900 or 1950 (or 1850) technology today with a pristine environment be anything short of genocidal w.r.t. actual length and quality of life, and on a scale Hitler and Stalin together couldn't have hoped for?



Stop desiring rationales for massive government controls, you mass-murdering "useful idiots".

lol. and they call me alarmist.

 

[Beerina]

You accept the conclusions and feel nothing should be done then? You do understand what this implies, don't you?

Yes it implies we will pop out the other end with longer, better-quality lives with a powerful economy operating all that time.

You do realise what you are implying, don't you? Actually, that you even asked that question implies you don't.

 

[Beerina]

lol. and they call me alarmist.

Comparing North vs. South Korea w.r.t government effect, damn straight I'm terrified of"useful idiots" playing into the hands of power grabs...for our own good.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

I picked neither conservative nor liberal based on an online test I took. Although by US standards, I guess I would be considered liberal...

 

[DC]

Comparing North vs. South Korea w.r.t government effect, damn straight I'm terrified of"useful idiots" playing into the hands of power grabs...for our own good.

so we are doomed in any case, when we do not act on the IPCC claims people will die.
when we act on the knowledge of science people will die do to ecofascism.

 

[uke2se]

Yes it implies we will pop out the other end with longer, better-quality lives with a powerful economy operating all that time.

You do realise what you are implying, don't you? Actually, that you even asked that question implies you don't.

No, it doesn't imply that. Are you sure you're familiar with the IPCC 4th Assessment Report?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No, it doesn't imply that. Are you sure you're familiar with the IPCC 4th Assessment Report?

Free Market will solve everything, lol. Have faith.

 

[Chaos]

Yes it implies we will pop out the other end with longer, better-quality lives with a powerful economy operating all that time.

You do realise what you are implying, don't you? Actually, that you even asked that question implies you don't.

Have you ever considered asking the Easter Islanders, or the Greenland Norse, how "accept and do nothing" worked out for them?

 

[Megalodon]

Have you ever considered asking the Easter Islanders, or the Greenland Norse, how "accept and do nothing" worked out for them?

But they didn't have the Invisible Magic Hand of the Awesome Truly Free Market patting them in the back. We do! Except we two don't because we're from commie Europe, where the medical advances we make are not made, and are due to the Truly Free American Dream Picket Fence Medicine.

In much the same way, the Awesome Capitalist Free Market Invisible Hand for Dealing with Global Warming will somehow solve the problems.

Unless it requires cutting subsidies to fossil fuels, because that's society killing genocidal statism!! Or giving subsidies to alternative, carbon neutral, energy sources, because that's communist tax-raising genocidal statism!!

Or something...

 

[uke2se]

I know we have a number of people who don't accept the IPCC conclusions. Where are you guys?

 

[balrog666]

Reality doesn't care what the Polls produce for the nightly news.

 

[uke2se]

Reality doesn't care what the Polls produce for the nightly news.