Politics And AGW/GW

[noggin]

Left for some things. Right for some things. Centre for other things.

Makes it difficult to decide who to vote for! :lol:

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Pretty much right of centre for me.

[HighPressure]

I like the ideology of the left but my experience is that everyone ends up on the dole, so right of centre for me :lol:

[VillagePlank]

I am not the left leg, nor the right leg, but somewhere in between :lol:

[PersianPaladin]

I believe in personal responsibility, individual liberty, local governance and community consultation, as well as freedom from taxation, freedom from fractional reserve banking, self-sufficiency, environmental awareness and a small central government with a very limited beuracratic portfolio.

I don't know where exactly that fits in the compartmentalist left-right paradigm.

Edited February 21, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Thundery wintry showers]

Here's a website where you can compare your own political ideologies with those of the prevailing politicians and see where you come out relative to them.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I remember being quite surprised by my results. I expected to come out libertarian on the vertical axis, but in terms of economics I expected to be near the centre. In reality I came out quite a long way left of centre- in more or less the same position as Ghandi and Nelson Mandela. As the Political Compass test is more of an ideology test than a practical policy test, though, it's quite possible that my personal manifesto would come out closer to the centre. I've seen enough to convince me that there's no way I'd be right of centre though.

Whatever, it tallies well with my inability to find a party to vote for as they are all either right of centre (Labour, Tories, and increasingly Lib Dems) or have one-track minds (Green Party).

When it comes to GW/AGW I reckon most extremists on the pro-AGW side tend to have ideologies approaching Marxism/Communism (this also tallies well with the position of the Green Party), and most on the anti-AGW extreme tend to be on the extreme right. But I reckon that in between the two extremes there might not be much of a correlation.

[laserguy]

Here's a website where you can compare your own political ideologies with those of the prevailing politicians and see where you come out relative to them.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

....and most on the anti-AGW extreme tend to be on the extreme right.

Well that was,ahem,revealing TWS! As you well know,I'm the 'denier's denier',utterly refuting AGW. But get this... the 'test' results show me as being very far left,yet I've always voted Tory!! Hmm. Stuff that nonsense,where 'AGW's concerned,I've just got more sense than most .

[noggin]

Well that was,ahem,revealing TWS! As you well know,I'm the 'denier's denier',utterly refuting AGW. But get this... the 'test' results show me as being very far left,yet I've always voted Tory!! Hmm. Stuff that nonsense,where 'AGW's concerned,I've just got more sense than most :lol: .

Laserguy.......I think you and I may be in the same box! :o :lol:

Anyway, what I really wanted to do was to re-post something I posted a while ago. A sort of reminder. Please excuse me for repeating myself. It's just that Anthony Watts has it in his blog today and it jogged my memory. Here goes...........

From Dwight D Eisenhower's farewell speech:

...."Yet in holding scientific research and development in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite."

Mr Eisenhower was very balanced, IMHO, in what he said.

It seems to me that, unfortunately, a chunk of it has already become captive to that "elite" (for want of a better word).

Ho hum.

Edited February 22, 2009 by noggin

[Solar Cycles]

Well that was,ahem,revealing TWS! As you well know,I'm the 'denier's denier',utterly refuting AGW. But get this... the 'test' results show me as being very far left,yet I've always voted Tory!! Hmm. Stuff that nonsense,where 'AGW's concerned,I've just got more sense than most :lol: .

Wow I'm just Left of center, news to me. I could never see me voting Labour, even though I'm from a traditional working class background. Some excellent questions on there though!

[Devonian]

Laserguy.......I think you and I may be in the same box! :o :lol: :lol:

Anyway, what I really wanted to do was to re-post something I posted a while ago. A sort of reminder. Please excuse me for repeating myself. It's just that Anthony Watts has it in his blog today and it jogged my memory. Here goes...........

From Dwight D Eisenhower's farewell speech:

...."Yet in holding scientific research and development in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite."

Mr Eisenhower was very balanced, IMHO, in what he said.

It seems to me that, unfortunately, a chunk of it has already become captive to that "elite" (for want of a better word).

Ho hum.

But, Noggin, suppose that AGW scepticism won the debate so that everyone became 'AGWsceptics' you would then become the elite. So on that basis you become wrong because you are part of the elite?

That the problem with that kind of argument (just like the consensus is wrong one as well) it calls something as right not because it's shown to to be so but because it's it's says elites or a consensus are wrong therefore those not being of the elite or consensus are right. I'm afraid it makes no sense.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Devonian

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I would be interested to hear from other members what their political views are, left of center, right of center, or just plain center. Would someone be able to set something up so we could vote ( sorry but computers and me are like a bad marriage ), thanks!

They have all made a pigs ear of things over the years! But I used to vote 'to the right' but haven't voted at all now for many years. However. next time around I will definitely be rubber stamping my own vote towards getting this dreadful lot out of power! :lol:

In terms of AGW sceptics being associated with far right, then that is certainly not true of me. I hate extremism either side, but if I had to choose then IMO far right is worse than far left!

[Devonian]

I would be interested to hear from other members what their political views are, left of center, right of center, or just plain center. Would someone be able to set something up so we could vote ( sorry but computers and me are like a bad marriage ), thanks!

I'm not attracted by either the right or the left.

[Solar Cycles]

I'm not attracted by either the right or the left.

Now I would have thought you would have been Left of center Dev. Just goes to show one shouldn't assume!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think you'll find that by that site's measure of politics, the Labour are actually significantly right of centre- about the same as where Tories are- and they've also become even more authoritarian than the Tories. The only major left-wing party is the Greens (the BNP are also left of centre on economics, but their extreme authoritarianism rules them out of contention). Lib Dems used to be centre left, but I think many of us have noticed them sliding towards the Tory position.

There was an interesting article in the Weather journal recently about the approach that scientists use to convey the current "state of play" to the public. Indeed, the general consensus is to convey that the science is settled (or at least near enough to being settled to be worth passing as settled) and that action is needed now. And that's before the media get at it and exaggerate the scientists' position beyond recognition. I recall the writer acknowledging the point I've made many times- if you tell the public that the science is settled, and it's blatantly obvious that it isn't, what are we going to get? Scepticism of course.

And what happens if the consensus actually turns out to be wrong? The IPCC only gives 90% confidence that most of the recent warming is caused by human activity- that leaves a 10% chance, by the IPCC's own admission, that the human impact could only be small. If that 10% probability comes off, there will be a lot of red faces, and destroyed public support of the scientists- "they lied to us once, so can we really trust them?"- the same as what happens with politicians today.

Thus I definitely think a change of emphasis is needed. The scientists, while simplifying things a bit, need to tell something that approximates closely to the truth, and then people might begin to take it more seriously. Certainly the latest Met Office press release went down very well. We need to see more of that kind of thing. But we also need to see more references to "sustainability" smuggled in there- because I think the public will be more happy to accept that as a reason for action than AGW.

[Solar Cycles]

I think you'll find that by that site's measure of politics, the Labour are actually significantly right of centre- about the same as where Tories are- and they've also become even more authoritarian than the Tories. The only major left-wing party is the Greens (the BNP are also left of centre on economics, but their extreme authoritarianism rules them out of contention). Lib Dems used to be centre left, but I think many of us have noticed them sliding towards the Tory position.

There was an interesting article in the Weather journal recently about the approach that scientists use to convey the current "state of play" to the public. Indeed, the general consensus is to convey that the science is settled (or at least near enough to being settled to be worth passing as settled) and that action is needed now. And that's before the media get at it and exaggerate the scientists' position beyond recognition. I recall the writer acknowledging the point I've made many times- if you tell the public that the science is settled, and it's blatantly obvious that it isn't, what are we going to get? Scepticism of course.

And what happens if the consensus actually turns out to be wrong? The IPCC only gives 90% confidence that most of the recent warming is caused by human activity- that leaves a 10% chance, by the IPCC's own admission, that the human impact could only be small. If that 10% probability comes off, there will be a lot of red faces, and destroyed public support of the scientists- "they lied to us once, so can we really trust them?"- the same as what happens with politicians today.

Thus I definitely think a change of emphasis is needed. The scientists, while simplifying things a bit, need to tell something that approximates closely to the truth, and then people might begin to take it more seriously. Certainly the latest Met Office press release went down very well. We need to see more of that kind of thing. But we also need to see more references to "sustainability" smuggled in there- because I think the public will be more happy to accept that as a reason for action than AGW.

I agree the MetO taking a different approach, is the way forward in trying to convince many of us who are skeptical to how much man has attributed to recent warming. Me personally think there is little or none, but I'm all for greener technology, and cleaning up our act.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Methuselah]

Ideologically, I guess I'm left of centre; more pragmatically, somewhere in the middle...And I haven't bothered to vote since 1992!

[laserguy]

And I haven't bothered to vote since 1992!

I'm gonna do that too,Pete - waste of time and shoe leather. Waiting for the protests now but my 43 years here have taught me that they really are every bit as bad as each other,just in different ways . Wonder how the whole 'climate change' debacle would be handled under the Tories?

[noggin]

But, Noggin, suppose that AGW scepticism won the debate so that everyone became 'AGWsceptics' you would then become the elite. So on that basis you become wrong because you are part of the elite?

That the problem with that kind of argument (just like the consensus is wrong one as well) it calls something as right not because it's shown to to be so but because it's it's says elites or a consensus are wrong therefore those not being of the elite or consensus are right. I'm afraid it makes no sense.

Dev, I read it as him saying that science alone should not dictate policy. Take it into account, yes, but there are so many other aspects that also should be taken into account e.g. moral, financial etc.

That's my take on it, anyway.

[noggin]

http://www.capitolclimateaction.org/

Dr (just for you, Dev ) James Hansen calls for mass civil disobedience.

It'll be interesting to see how many people take part and how it will be reported in the media.

[laserguy]

Dev, I read it as him saying that science alone should not dictate policy. Take it into account, yes, but there are so many other aspects that also should be taken into account e.g. moral, financial etc.

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Have a read of the top story here,and especially the first comment.

"James Hansen calls for mass civil disobedience". I hope he gets his way,be really,really fun to see the results. Anyway,I think the guy is now so far gone that he should be treated as an irrelevance by all those of us left who are capable of rational thinking. Trouble is,there's still too many around who revere him for past glories and can't let go. It's madness,truly.

[Devonian]

I was, some time ago, a political activist for one of the main three political parties. Such political activist (of whatever party tbh) work damn hard to try and overcome the kind of political apathy some recent posts represent. It is hair tearingly irritating (to the point I eventually gave up - but at least I tried) that people both criticise politician but also do sweet FA to change things - up to and including not even bothering to vote . Free voting, democracy, is a privilege bought by the activism of many who suffered to bring it about and, yes, blood by those who died in war so we might have it. It is not something to casually not do!

Don't like our politics? The get up and do something about it! Complaining about it but doing nothing I just don't get.

http://www.capitolclimateaction.org/

Dr (just for you, Dev ) James Hansen calls for mass civil disobedience.

It'll be interesting to see how many people take part and how it will be reported in the media.

Without civil disobedience I think we would still be in the dark ages. I might not agree with someone but, by god, I respect people who get of their butts and do something about something they feel strongly about!

And yet, all some can do is carp at and ridicule such 'stand up and be counted' actions.

[noggin]

http://www.capitolclimateaction.org/

Dr (just for you, Dev ) James Hansen calls for mass civil disobedience.

It'll be interesting to see how many people take part and how it will be reported in the media.

It' be interesting to see what, if anything, happens to Dr Hansen as well........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

[laserguy]

Something,soon methinks is going to go with an almighty BANG in the weird and wacky world of politics and 'AGW'! Caint'cha feel the vibes,man!?

[noggin]

And yet, all some can do is carp at and ridicule such 'stand up and be counted' actions.

Dev, I hope you are not implying that I "carp and ridicule".

[laserguy]

Don't like our politics? The get up and do something about it! Complaining about it but doing nothing I just don't get.

Well I do agree with you there,Dev. But for every cause that a given group protests for,there'll be an opposite group who is against,no? How does it go ... you can please some of the people some of the time,etc. I used to be a political animal too,believe it or not,but have seen the light. Or summat .