|
Post by cnlmustard on Aug 14, 2009 4:25:47 GMT
Col 'NDX, I entice you to put a poll on this thread:
I propose that the global warming debate is only one more, of a number of issues which seem to run together as a group of opinion.
So, how many of you who are "skeptics", are also:
pro-gun rights anti-abortion pro-death penalty anti-ozone depletion theory pro-state's rights anti-seperation of church/state anti-gay rights anti-welfare entitlement pro- flat income tax rate pro-US military actions
I'll be the first to admit I'm all of the above, so I'm a global warming "skeptic" who's 10 for 10 in the above list. Who's next?
|
|
|
Post by atra on Aug 14, 2009 6:09:52 GMT
pro-gun rights - yes anti-abortion - no pro-death penalty - yes anti-ozone depletion theory - don't know pro-state's rights - yes anti-seperation of church/state - big no anti-gay rights - no anti-welfare entitlement - yes pro- flat income tax rate - maybe pro-US military actions - not quite
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 14, 2009 8:54:34 GMT
Col 'NDX, I entice you to put a poll on this thread: I propose that the global warming debate is only one more, of a number of issues which seem to run together as a group of opinion. So, how many of you who are "skeptics", are also: pro-gun rights anti-abortion pro-death penalty anti-ozone depletion theory pro-state's rights anti-seperation of church/state anti-gay rights anti-welfare entitlement pro- flat income tax rate pro-US military actions I'll be the first to admit I'm all of the above, so I'm a global warming "skeptic" who's 10 for 10 in the above list. Who's next? I didn't know they had free internet access in Iran Yes I read the last one, but I went skiing around Tahoe a few years ago and someone had pasted "Iran wants the US to invade Iraq" signs on all the ski-lift poles.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Aug 14, 2009 9:21:42 GMT
This is crap.
The idea is to argue points in some sort of reasoned forum. The inclusion of belief in any clustering implies a logic less debate.
You will loose the good folk from both points of this very serious discussion.
Global warming if it exists will cost this world a lot should it be addressed.
I have no interest in being bundled with a pro or anti gun lobby say based on a scientific argument.
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Aug 14, 2009 9:59:14 GMT
Truth is, political left embraced AGW theory as next after battle against American Pershings.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 14, 2009 12:37:02 GMT
I think that there may be a 'political' tendency toward one side or the other on most of these debates but what should be remembered is that they are not black and white or binary issues. To try to make them into yes/no issues devalues the debate on each issue.
Just a couple of examples - * pro-gun rights? How about someone bringing sub-machine guns into a kindergarten? * Anti-Separation of Church and State? Say the President declares he is actually Muslim and he is forming a Muslim council and imposing republic wide Sharia Law?
Each of these debates are shades of gray and need a level of understanding of the issues and why they became issues.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 14, 2009 13:31:30 GMT
As a Canadian, I object strongly to this thread. It seems to have been started by a citizen of the USA, who is under the mistaken impression that the USA is the center of the universe. Let me give a Canadian perspective to the first two items.
Gun control. Canada has no equivalent to the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. Guns are under severe control. The only question here, is should the gun control be more restrictive than it now is.
Abortion. This is a complete non-issue in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on the issue on numerous occasions. Abortion is a medical procedure that is under the control of the Canadian College of Physicians and Surgeons; the same as giving flu shots, mending broken bones and open heart surgery. It is soley between the physician and patient, and the human embryo has no rights until he/she is born, when he/she acquires all the rights of Canadian citizen.
|
|
shm6666
Level 2 Rank
The Sun :-)
Posts: 98
|
Post by shm6666 on Aug 14, 2009 13:49:11 GMT
I´m living in Sweden so here is my take.
AGW skeptic: Yes
pro-gun rights: No anti-abortion: No pro-death penalty: No anti-ozone depletion theory: What is that? pro-state's rights: No anti-seperation of church/state: No anti-gay rights: No anti-welfare entitlement: No pro- flat income tax rate: Yes pro-US military actions: No
Oh well, I scored only one. There is more to a AGW septic then what you listed above ;-).
/Sven
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 14, 2009 13:53:57 GMT
It should be clear as day this individual is a drive-by poster (or sock puppet), and is not a "skeptic".
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 14, 2009 19:28:27 GMT
So, how many of you who are "skeptics", are also:
pro-gun rights - agree anti-abortion - disagree, it's a woman's choice pro-death penalty - agree for some cases, why bother to keep them up anti-ozone depletion theory - unsure, no data on the ozone hole from before CFCs pro-state's rights - It is a republic and it has some great benefits anti-seperation of church/state - Religion and politics DO NOT MIX well and it doesn't matter, it's unconstitutional anti-gay rights - strongly disagree, it's nobody's business but theirs anti-welfare entitlement - middle ground. In some cases yes, in some cases no pro- flat income tax rate - there are numerous systems, each with benefits pro-US military actions - Depends...but in many circumstances yes
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Aug 14, 2009 21:11:40 GMT
I score one as well. Am I still allowed to be a critics of AGW?
And just to make it worse: I have a company working with solar panels.... I still dont belive in CO2 driven AGW heating. It might be global warming or global cooling but the math for making it CO2 induced is not there.
It is all about the clouds.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Aug 14, 2009 23:56:58 GMT
I am very pleased to see than I am not some sort of freak who is highly sceptical of the AGW camps over blown hype and largely comfortable a liberal world.
I am involved in a solar house development the oil industry and feel certain that pollution is a very serious issue.
In addition it would be a fool who suggests that CO2 can have no GW impact. This is a discussion about impact relevance and ultimately what the effect of a CO2 reduction in output would do if anything.
My suspicion is that they the AGWs scream to loud and that they feel the ground beneath them slumping.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Aug 15, 2009 1:00:08 GMT
I would find it more enlightening to know the educational backgrounds of skeptics and warmists than what their political beliefs are. Trouble is, I know I wouldn't believe some respondents. Some have already made claims I find difficult to believe considering their clear and total lack of understanding of the scientific method.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 15, 2009 1:33:26 GMT
I would find it more enlightening to know the educational backgrounds of skeptics and warmists than what their political beliefs are. Trouble is, I know I wouldn't believe some respondents. Some have already made claims I find difficult to believe considering their clear and total lack of understanding of the scientific method. OK>>>OK........I will admit it. I am a farmer, not a climatologist. Or am I?............
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 15, 2009 1:34:36 GMT
I would find it more enlightening to know the educational backgrounds of skeptics and warmists than what their political beliefs are. Trouble is, I know I wouldn't believe some respondents. Some have already made claims I find difficult to believe considering their clear and total lack of understanding of the scientific method. OK>>>OK........I will admit it. I am a farmer, not a climatologist. Or am I?............ Or if I am both, does that indicate that I am bi being I can do two things at the same time? Gosh.....I just don't know how to answer those complicated questions. Simple ones on climate are easy......
|
|