# Political poll



## emiellucifuge

Just to find out where the forum leans.

Please, I dont mind some debate but keep it civil.

If youre not sure then take this test and find out:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Even if you are sure, take the test and post your score here.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Assume the left-right line is economic and the prog/con is social.

My results are:
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian - left this out but cant retrieve it. Im very much Libertarian however.

I have an overriding interest in the environment.


----------



## Argus

Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49

Centre left, I guess.



emiellucifuge said:


> Assume the left-right line is economic and the prog/con is social.
> 
> My results are:
> Economic Left/Right: -4.88
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian
> 
> I have an overriding interest in the environment.


You missed out the social lib/aut stat, ya goddamn pinko.

We've had a thread like this before. If anyone can find it I'd like to see if I've got more right wing with age.


----------



## Chris

I've ended up fairly near the middle of the diagram, about half way between Romano Prodi and Pope Benedict XVI. Economic L/R -0.38, Social Libertarian / Authoritarian 1.79. I found some of the questions poorly designed though. What is meant by 'Do you agree with 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'? Should I take its original meaning and purpose, which was to do with judicial restraint, or the Pharisees' misunderstanding that it was about revenge?


----------



## Guest

I don't really think my stats here are accurate, as some of the questions I felt were asked in such a way that I couldn't answer accurately, but it forced me to in order to move on. Nevertheless, my results were:
Economic Left/Right: 3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.46


----------



## Art Rock

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97

About right.


----------



## Toccata

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62


----------



## SuperTonic

Economic left/right: -3.50
Social libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

I'm in Dalai Lama territory.


----------



## emiellucifuge

This might be interesting:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/composers

Also, i will compile all the results posted here onto a TC political compass chart.


----------



## toucan

The populism of Republicans versus the arrogance of Democrats: some choice.

A few years ago it looked like a third party concensus was possible in the USA, around a fiscally conservative but socially moderate-to-liberal philosophy. Something like an American version of Kadima, which would have had the added avantage of throwing evangelicals and Rush Limbaugh into the dust bins of history (along with what would have been what's left of the republican party) - and also of marginalizing green/red types, trotskyistes, teachers unions (along what should have been what's left of the democratic party). 

There is a grave problem with the selection process for presidential candidates in America. I mean, since Dukakis (that non-entity the democrats chose in 1988 even though they had strong personalities like Mario Cuomo, Edward Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, or Lloyd Bentsen to choose from), only second rates and second fiddles, like Billy "goat" Clinton, Georges W. Bush, and Barak Obamamia.

The choice offered us last election seemed especially eggregious, especially considering that the American and World economies were on the brink of catastrophy. That weak and unprepared back-bencher, Obama, VS a McCain who gravely botched his response to the banking crisis (thereby failing to rise up to the occasion), while making a choice of VP so utterly irresponsible as to make Joe Biden look like a serious, mature adult.


----------



## Toccata

The problem with the chart showing the "political compass" of certain major composers, as posted above, is that there is no guarantee that these individuals would have the same social/political leanings if they lived in present-day times.

Marx commented that "_.. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness"_. Not that I'm a Marxist (or anything like), but this particular observation always struck me as having some validilty, in which case the political standpoints of historical figures, like the various composers listed, has to be taken with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

This poll is too far stretched...

How about just right wing or left wing?


----------



## Toccata

emiellucifuge said:


> This might be interesting:
> http://www.politicalcompass.org/composers
> 
> Also, i will compile all the results posted here onto a TC political compass chart.


I can't wait to see who I'm going to be bedded with.


----------



## mueske

Economic Left/Right: 3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72 

I expected to be even more down towards the libertarian side, but oh well, some questions I didn't have an opinion about so were hard to answer.


----------



## jhar26

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95


----------



## Guest

Toccata said:


> I can't wait to see who I'm going to be bedded with.


Oh irony of ironies - I'm sorry to tell you that it looks like we are going to grouped fairly close together - at least in the same color quadrant!


----------



## mamascarlatti

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59 

I'm happy to be in the same box as the Dalai Lama, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.


----------



## jhar26

mamascarlatti said:


> Economic Left/Right: -7.00
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59
> 
> I'm happy to be in the same box as the Dalai Lama, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.


.....and jhar26.


----------



## Guest

toucan said:


> The populism of Republicans versus the arrogance of Democrats: some choice.
> 
> A few years ago it looked like a third party concensus was possible in the USA, around a fiscally conservative but socially moderate-to-liberal philosophy. Something like an American version of Kadima, which would have had the added avantage of throwing evangelicals and Rush Limbaugh into the dust bins of history (along with what would have been what's left of the republican party) - and also of marginalizing green/red types, trotskyistes, teachers unions (along what should have been what's left of the democratic party).
> 
> There is a grave problem with the selection process for presidential candidates in America. I mean, since Dukakis (that non-entity the democrats chose in 1988 even though they had strong personalities like Mario Cuomo, Edward Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, or Lloyd Bentsen to choose from), only second rates and second fiddles, like Billy "goat" Clinton, Georges W. Bush, and Barak Obamamia.
> 
> The choice offered us last election seemed especially eggregious, especially considering that the American and World economies were on the brink of catastrophy. That weak and unprepared back-bencher, Obama, VS a McCain who gravely botched his response to the banking crisis (thereby failing to rise up to the occasion), while making a choice of VP so utterly irresponsible as to make Joe Biden look like a serious, mature adult.


Your perceived strong personalities back in '88 had some serious flaws. Ted Kennedy hadn't been a truly viable candidate since the day Mary Jo Kopechne died, and then his perceived sabotage of the 1980 primaries left a sour taste in too many mouths. Lloyd Bentsen was only a Senator, and they don't typically win the presidency, with only a few exceptions. Rockefeller had been governor, but with no stellar record as unemployment in his state rose to nearly 20%. And Mario Cuomo was only a mayor.

But a viable third party is never going to amount to much. They may gain some footholds at lower levels, maybe even a congressional or Senate seat. But at the national level, they tend to either be too polarizing, or just too much of an unknown. At best, they can upset an election, pulling away votes from one party or the other. And even were such a third party to win the presidency, where is the necessity for either party to cooperate in Congress? What is the political fallout of not siding with the odd man out? I'm not saying that party politics should be the deciding factor in deciding how one will vote, but in the real world of American politics, that is how it works. Which party whip is going to go out to get members to vote for the third party candidate's bill? We haven't seen the emergence of a significant new political party since the founding of the GOP back in the mid-19th century. And back then, even, you only saw new parties forming once one had completely disappeared - one party rule doesn't last very long in this country. Each party likes to dance on the grave of the other after each new election when they are swept back into power, but lately neither party seems to be able to get too comfortable in their new seats. So for the time being, it looks like 2 parties.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> This poll is too far stretched...
> 
> How about just right wing or left wing?


Well because that isnt really a satisfactory way to describe a political 'leaning'. I would much rather label myself progressive than left.


----------



## Toccata

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> How about just right wing or left wing?


Because there's an up-down as well.


----------



## Norse

I voted conservative left, since I'm generally left/socialist leaning, but may disagree with the most typical left view on the occational subject. Although, I guess it depends on the standards you're using. By American standards I'm probably a "filthy commie".


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Toccata said:


> Because there's an up-down as well.


What's an up-down lol


----------



## World Violist

-5.38 left/right
-6.15 authoritarian/libertarian

What. A. Shocker.

Come on, I watch The Colbert Report for the news.


----------



## Guest

Norse said:


> I voted conservative left, since I'm generally left/socialist leaning, but may disagree with the most typical left view on the occational subject. Although, I guess it depends on the standards you're using. By American standards I'm probably a "filthy commie".


So take a bath.


----------



## toucan

DrMike said:


> So take a bath.


Mike,

How 'bout you take a bar of soap, buddy, and wash your mouth with it... :trp:


----------



## Norse

DrMike said:


> So take a bath.


Something tells that won't help.


----------



## mmsbls

Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74

I suspect that the economic scale is a bit tilted too far to the left for me, but perhaps it's a better assessment than I realize. I felt economic questions were too simplified compared with the social questions.


----------



## Guest

toucan said:


> Mike,
> 
> How 'bout you take a bar of soap, buddy, and wash your mouth with it... :trp:


I see you missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of my comment - he used the phrase "filthy commie" so I suggested he take a bath, the implication being that then he would be a "clean" commie.

So you can take some deep breaths, get your pulse back down, and take it for the harmless joke that it was meant to be.


----------



## toucan

Oh, boy, there we go again with the internet. And now I suppose I am expected to tell the wikipedia poli-scientist to follow his own advice. He certainly needs to do something about his susceptibility...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I'm brewing my English breakfast tea, getting it ready as I read this thread.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Economic Left/Right -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian 1.38

I'm still puzzled.


----------



## Air

Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0

Darn, I accidentally clicked the wrong button when submitting my vote for the poll. I am _certainly_ a leftist, but not an extreme one - I've always been skeptical of "full-blown" Communism. Even the real kind, I mean.

I don't know which option on the poll my social views would correspond with because I'm literally dead centre there.


----------



## Almaviva

I believe that we did the exact same thing a while back, didn't we? I seem to remember that at the time my scores were very similar to Natalie's (mamascarlatti) and Gaston (jhar26) as some of the _lefties_ of the forum. Or am I thinking of similar characters in another forum? It's possible, I don't remember. I'm experiencing this _déjà vu _that in some classical music board, this one or another one, I took this test and was among the three most leftist members.

I feel lazy about repeating the whole thing (I'm watching March Madness now and browsing the forum at the same time) but it might be interesting to see if I have shifted more towards the center; I have felt this kind of pull in my thinking lately.

So, without taking your test, I may have to vote conservative left instead of progressive left, which would be what I'd have voted a while ago.

I think that what's been happening to my political thinking is that I've been concerned about this planet becoming a tougher and harsher place, and I have been worried about the survival of certain Western values and what may happen to international relations when we get a true energy crisis or drinkable water supply crisis.

For desperate times, desperate measures, and I can see some very liberal societies in the future being forced into a more authoritarian approach for the sake of sheer survival. As I grow older and worry more about the next generation (my kids, and I hope, my future grandchildren) I think I've been drifting towards the center of the political spectrum.


----------



## Almaviva

Oh well, it looks like I don't know what I'm saying about myself...:lol: I took the test after all, and it seems like I remain quite leftist, in the company of Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. So, not much of a push to the center as I had anticipated, go figure. Or maybe there is some; I wish I could remember my old scores, they might have been in the -7's.

My current scores:

Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.33


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Being left/right has to do with how you think about government, right? and conservative/progressive has do with ethical standards?

What about _musically_? I'm sort of a mixture of rebel and reactionary, down the middle.


----------



## World Violist

Huilunsoittaja said:


> What about _musically_? I'm sort of a mixture of rebel and reactionary, down the middle.


I'd probably say I'm with you there. As many people here know by now... I do have a streak of respect for the mainstream concept of the greatest of the great composers, somewhere... as in, in my Bach collection.


----------



## Sid James

I remember this survey came up a while back, & the result I got was in the company of guys like Ghandi!!! Can't be bothered with taking it again. I'm pretty much centre-left in most of my political views. I don't really like either of the major parties here in Australia. I don't like extremes either. I haven't bought a newspaper in yonks & I don't watch much televison. Most of my news I get online & the snippets I hear on radio. I'm not as politically informed as I used to be. Life is too short to waste my time on such divisive rubbish. I'm pretty apathetic about politics generally, and especially the media. I'd rather have a conversation with someone about things like what music they like or where they've travelled rather than politics, which often turns out to be very boring...

Here in my state of New South Wales, there's an election coming up on the weekend. Couldn't care less who wins, both parties are pus as far as I'm concerned. The Greens might actually win the seat I live in, which would be an interesting change, as this has been a solid Labor seat for yonks...


----------



## emiellucifuge

My opinion on that Andre, is that although you may not like politics, the winner of an election still has the power to govern you so you might as well use your voting power to oick the lesser of the evils.



@Huilunsoittaja: Left/Right is about the governments involvement in the economy. Progressive/Conservative is about social values... I.e. Abortions, emancipation, religion,


----------



## Xaltotun

Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85

Yeah. There with mamascarlatti and jhar26, it seems.


----------



## Rasa

Silly questions.



> No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.


Being born in a country isn't the only possible reason to be proud of it. The question tries to probe nationalist sentiment in the person taking the poll, but why shouldn't someone be proud of his country, where he has voted and is indirectly governing?



> Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.


Ofcourse it does. Like the fact we can drive cars. So to clue you in, I find the question ambivalent because it probes for racism, yet as far as that goes, the only race is the human one, next to animal etc.


----------



## Xaltotun

There used to be a nice internet game, called "Nationstates" that taught me a lot about political orientation and what it means. See, in this game you manage a nation, and answer questions. According to your answers, your nation gets rated on three scales:

degree of political freedoms,
degree of economic freedoms, and
degree of personal freedoms.

The game had a lot of different labels for countries occupying different places in the "3-dimensional" grid. So if I compare that game to this test, it seems that in this test, political freedoms and personal freedoms are combined to a single axis, while economical freedoms constitute the other axis. So, in a way, that game had a richer scale of political orientations than this test - "3-dimensional" instead of "2-dimensional". I don't know if it still exists, google it out if you're interested ,)


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

'Right progressive' is oxymoronic.


----------



## Delicious Manager

One of my nicknames in my younger days was 'Ivan' because of my lefty political views. Although I have mellowed a little over time, I still count myself as pretty far left on the spectrum.

Having cast my vote, I was interested to see that my category ('progressive left') is easily in the lead at the moment.


----------



## Guest

Given that the original post directs everybody to the test for their place on the political spectrum, I wonder why the poll choices weren't set up similarly - i.e. left authoritarian, left libertarian, right authoritarion, right libertarian, etc.? In terms of that spectrum, where exactly do conservative and progressive fall?


----------



## Toccata

DrMike said:


> Given that the original post directs everybody to the test for their place on the political spectrum, I wonder why the poll choices weren't set up similarly - i.e. left authoritarian, left libertarian, right authoritarion, right libertarian, etc.? In terms of that spectrum, where exactly do conservative and progressive fall?


Possibly the answer will become clear once all these responses are placed on a graph, as promised earlier. But somehow I doubt it, as I reckon there's going to be a problem amalgamating the responses from those who bothered to answer the set of questions in the link in post no 1, and those who didn't.

I would be interested to know how many people who have voted in this thread are actually old enough in their respective countries to be able to vote in their general elections. I wonder, too, if there are any voters here who don't have a voting system as such, perhaps because they live in a one-party State.

There seems to be a trend from some of the previous posters to advertise one's left-wing credentials. OK then, in that case, in order to balance the books somewhat, in my youth and University days I was quite right wing (being a big fan of Margaret Thatcher), but I've seen moved more towards the centre-ground, in much the same fashion as the British Conservative Party has perforce had to do in order to secure re-election.

I absolutely hated the Labour Party which Mrs T defeated in 1979. It later became known as "Old Labour". Its economic policies were a complete disaster for this country, with massive over-intervention. The various "nationalised industries" were a joke for service, and were hugely inefficient. The Labour Govenment pampered to the trade union barons in an uterly disgraceful way, that finally led to catastrophic failure in the late 70's in a "winter of discontent" with public sector strikes all over the place.

After that, thankfully, under Thatcher and Major, we had major reforms across the piece and 18 years of economic growth and a transformation of the UK's international stature from pariah to being respected again.

"New Labour", which came into power in 1997, was also a thorough disaster, with Blair and Brown, cocking things up all over the place, first with our involvement in the Iraq War, and latterly with the huge public sector deficit they incurred trying to stave off recession, which itself was partly created by their own shortcomings in providing for inadequate controls of the financial sector.

I would guess that at least some of the younger members here who are left-inclined may change their mind once they enter the "real world".


----------



## Guest

Toccata said:


> Possibly the answer will become clear once all these responses are placed on a graph, as promised earlier. But somehow I doubt it, as I reckon there's going to be a problem amalgamating the responses from those who bothered to answer the set of questions in the link in post no 1, and those who didn't.
> 
> I would be interested to know how many people who have voted in this thread are actually old enough in their respective countries to be able to vote in their general elections. I wonder, too, if there are any voters here who don't have a voting system as such, perhaps because they live in a one-party State.
> 
> There seems to be a trend from some of the previous posters to advertise one's left-wing credentials. OK then, in that case, in order to balance the books somewhat, in my youth and University days I was quite right wing (being a big fan of Margaret Thatcher), but I've seen moved more towards the centre-ground, in much the same fashion as the British Conservative Party has perforce had to do in order to secure re-election.
> 
> I absolutely hated the Labour Party which Mrs T defeated in 1979. It later became known as "Old Labour". Its economic policies were a complete disaster for this country, with massive over-intervention. The various "nationalised industries" were a joke for service, and were hugely inefficient. The Labour Govenment pampered to the trade union barons in an uterly disgraceful way, that finally led to catastrophic failure in the late 70's in a "winter of discontent" with public sector strikes all over the place.
> 
> After that, thankfully, under Thatcher and Major, we had major reforms across the piece and 18 years of economic growth and a transformation of the UK's international stature from pariah to being respected again.
> 
> "New Labour", which came into power in 1997, was also a thorough disaster, with Blair and Brown, cocking things up all over the place, first with our involvement in the Iraq War, and latterly with the huge public sector deficit they incurred trying to stave off recession, which itself was partly created by their own shortcomings in providing for inadequate controls of the financial sector.
> 
> I would guess that at least some of the younger members here who are left-inclined may change their mind once they enter the "real world".


I heartily agree. Although I have considered myself a conservative for as long as politics have interested me (going back to 1988 - I've been of legal voting age since 1993), different aspects of politics have interested me since I have actually entered the workforce, and while it was the social issues that monopolized my political interests prior to earning a paycheck, now it is the economic issues that energize me the most (although I still care about the social issues).


----------



## Il Seraglio

Economic Left/Right: -5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64 









I'm not a big newspaper fan (SO many hacks) and normally look to Private Eye and New Statesman for news and views.

I used to think this Political Compass questionnaire was a bit biased (90% of people seem to come out with left-liberal as results) and I still think it does, but have come to realise it raises an important point about the wide chasm between the views of the public and the views of politicians (who are normally ten times as right-wing as they claim to be).


----------



## sospiro

I always work on the elections in the UK, setting up the Polling Stations, issuing ballot papers etc so I cannot publicly express my political views.


But working on the elections does give me £150.00 to fritter on music


----------



## jurianbai

LOL..... I spend quite some minutes to find this thread. Now you can see some "update" (in case some member shifting political ideology or ...defect).


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Where I live, I literally have no say. I'm 18 now, so I can vote, but I'm outnumbered about 1 to 9 for my political position. So I don't even want to vote. I hate politics with a passion.


----------



## emiellucifuge

@DrMike:

I wanted the poll and the test to contrast where people perceive themselves to be, and where the test puts them

@Toccata: the political compass website has a feature allowing me to add points on to their graph by inputting the scores of members here, so I will only be using the results of people who did the test. 

The rest of your post is basically an argument for right-wing politics, so I wont get into it. Though I will say, you are right I havent experience job markets etc..., but as a student of the sciences I know this planet is heading to man-made disaster and am frustrated by the right's inaction on these issues. 

@ilseraglio: check out the graph placements of the european governments and other parties. When i saw that i was surprised by the lack of parties in the left block.

@Rasa: I think by race they meant caucasian vs asian rather than human vs elephant


----------



## Toccata

emiellucifuge said:


> @DrMike:
> 
> @Toccata: the political compass website has a feature allowing me to add points on to their graph by inputting the scores of members here, so I will only be using the results of people who did the test.
> 
> The rest of your post is basically an argument for right-wing politics, so I wont get into it. Though I will say, you are right I havent experience job markets etc..., but *as a student of the sciences I know this planet is heading to man-made disaster and am frustrated by the right's inaction on these issues.*


What kind of "disaster" are you specifically referring to? Can you point to a major country with a "right wing" government which is pursuing a policy of "inaction" in this area? Can you also point to a "left-wing" government which is pursuing a policy in this area which you approve of?


----------



## science

Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54


----------



## science

People do grow somewhat more conservative as they age, but I've been a working man now for over a decade (I'm in my early 30s) and I'm still fairly liberal - and I'm optimistic about the future of liberalism in the USA.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I'm a libertarian seeking the perfect meritocracy. In which country should I live?


----------



## science

Perhaps Somalia. 

(Only half serious here.)


----------



## emiellucifuge

Toccata said:


> What kind of "disaster" are you specifically referring to? Can you point to a major country with a "right wing" government which is pursuing a policy of "inaction" in this area? Can you also point to a "left-wing" government which is pursuing a policy in this area which you approve of?


I am referring to Climate change.

I will use the example of the Netherlands. We have a pure-right wing government. One party is skeptic. The other two just dont care.

In the USA, the Democrats (also at more localised levels...) are working to reduce emissions, give more powers to the EPA, and begin cap and trade programs. At the same time the Republicans recently voted to strip the EPA of CO2-emission-regulating powers.


----------



## Argus

emiellucifuge said:


> I am referring to Climate change.
> 
> I will use the example of the Netherlands. We have a pure-right wing government. One party is skeptic. The other two just dont care.
> 
> In the USA, the Democrats (also at more localised levels...) are working to reduce emissions, give more powers to the EPA, and begin cap and trade programs. At the same time the Republicans recently voted to strip the EPA of CO2-emission-regulating powers.


Yeah, but when the polar ice caps melt and the sea levels rise, only Holland and Southern England will become subaquatic, and who cares about them. Oh wait....


----------



## toucan

emiellucifuge said:


> but as a student of the sciences I know this planet is heading to man-made disaster and am frustrated by the right's inaction on these issues.


That's not true. There is not a day that Rush Limbaugh does not wave a finger at the sun and thunders: "cool it, buddy; I can't hear myself sweat in this studio."



Edward Elgar said:


> I'm a libertarian seeking the perfect meritocracy. In which country should I live?


Rabelais' abbaye de Thélème


----------



## emiellucifuge

Argus said:


> Yeah, but when the polar ice caps melt and the sea levels rise, only Holland and Southern England will become subaquatic, and who cares about them. Oh wait....


If thats a joke then fine, its funny.

If not please let me know and I will inform you of the effects of global warming that will damage ecosystems and cost the world economy trillions of dollars.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> I am referring to Climate change.
> 
> I will use the example of the Netherlands. We have a pure-right wing government. One party is skeptic. The other two just dont care.
> 
> In the USA, the Democrats (also at more localised levels...) are working to reduce emissions, give more powers to the EPA, and begin cap and trade programs. At the same time the Republicans recently voted to strip the EPA of CO2-emission-regulating powers.


Global warming - the "science" that is being proposed based on the observations of mountain climbers and former politicians who stand to make (or have already made) millions in new "green" technology if their story is accepted. The UN climate panel has had much of its findings exposed as being backed up by at best shoddy research. We don't hear much about the poor polar bears anymore because their numbers are increasing. We hear about the shrinking of the Greenland glaciers, but surprisingly little about how much the ice cover in Antarctica is growing. We learn about some of the data being left out of models that conveniently show that the model doesn't work. Despite a steady increase in CO2 emissions, we have not had a significant increase in temperatures in over a decade. We are being slammed with record lows. Back in the 70's it was global cooling that we were told was the greatest threat to mankind. Now they don't even call it global warming - because that has become a joke. Now, it is just called climate change, so that way any shift can be blamed. Getting warmer, getting colder, it all fits under "climate change." Even the most dire predictions call for a fraction of a degree change over the next 100 years, with sea levels rising only negligibly. Every natural disaster is laid at the feet of climate change, even when no actual scientists support those claims.

And we are lectured about how we need to have a smaller carbon footprint by the intellectual elite who jet around the globe in private jets that burn more fossil fuels in a single trip than the average person will expend in a year. Al Gore - the prophet of climate change - makes a fortune off of a movie that has been exposed to have numerous factual errors, and lives in a mansion bigger than he needs which consumes more energy than the poor person who drives an old beat up car that burns oil. But it's okay, because he buys carbon offsets . . . from himself. Because, you see, he makes money off of people going green.

And as for it only being conservatives who are an impediment to "earth-saving" measures - well, liberals are all for green proposals, as long as they still get to drive around in their SUV limos and as long as you don't try to put any windmills in their backyard.

Driving around in little electric cars with a range of 30 miles is fine in small, compact Euro-countries. But here in the U.S., things are much more spread out. Like it or not, there is no better system right now to provide us with the energy we need. Wind and solar just aren't feasible. And liberals have been the biggest opponents of nuclear. The panacea of ethanol has been a disaster - even Al Gore had to concede that the production of ethanol actually generates more greenhouse gases than you save by not using oil-based fuels.

No scientific model has thus far been able to successfully predict future climate trends. New variables become apparent all the time. There are numerous simpler systems that we still can't accurately predict, and yet somehow scientists are able to accurately predict global climate trends for decades and centuries into the future. And with all the variables, it all comes down to one single molecule - CO2 - that controls everything. Seems a bit simplistic to me, and if there is anything science has taught me, it is that nature is not simple, and there is almost never one single variable controlling any given system.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Your post reeks of ideological warfare and a hatred for the 'liberal elite'.

But lets be honest, there are no longer significant issues with the science. And even if humans cant fully predict the complexities of the natural climate system - weve already _observed_ the warming occur and have impact throughout the previous century.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... arming.htm
http://hokulea.soest.hawaii.edu/ocn435/ ... _Lacis.pdf
http://www.csun.edu/~hmc60533/CSUN_630E ... ummary.pdf


----------



## jhar26

It won't make a difference whether it's true or not because we won't do anything about it anyway. One politician in Belgium said during the last election campaign that we're doomed, but that it's no use telling people what needs to be done because if he does that he won't get elected. I think that's part of the problem. Deep down inside we all know that there's a problem, but if we admit it we'd have to do something about it - there would be a price to pay, and we're not willing to do that. So we rather live in denial.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> Your post reeks of ideological warfare and a hatred for the 'liberal elite'.
> 
> But lets be honest, there are no longer significant issues with the science. And even if humans cant fully predict the complexities of the natural climate system - weve already _observed_ the warming occur and have impact throughout the previous century.
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... arming.htm
> http://hokulea.soest.hawaii.edu/ocn435/ ... _Lacis.pdf
> http://www.csun.edu/~hmc60533/CSUN_630E ... ummary.pdf


The second link was a dead link, and I'm not going to go scouring through class syllabi (the last two links). Regarding the Science link, it was hardly a sturdy assertion that climate change theory is rock solid. It stated that the major societies found the evidence "compelling." It then analyzed the papers published on the subject, and found that they supported this position - well of course they did! For a paper to be published, it has to be reviewed. As we learned from the leaked emails, there are those at the forefront of this debate who are urging editors to ignore studies that challenge the current consensus.

The author did at least have the intellectual honesty to say, "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it." So, it may be wrong, but we can't afford to not act. Except we also can't afford to act on uncertain conclusions. The draconian measures proposed to reverse this theory (which, lets be clear, the experts say we really can't even reverse it with what is being proposed) will collapse the global economy. There are lots of threats that we face every day, but we can't react with extreme measures for every potential threat - just in case - realistically. I stand a much higher risk of dying in a car accident each and every day than catastrophic global climate change - but I still go out every day.

I don't have any problem with liberal elites. I have problems with hypocritical liberal elites. Why do they have all these global climate summits, which never accomplish anything, in nice places all over the globe, when they could really just teleconference? What about that great global warming concert they had that generated so much garbage and created a HUGE carbon footprint? Why does Al Gore fly around in a private jet, and live in a huge mansion, when he is exhorting us all to limit our carbon footprints? What about the inconvenient truth that he has become extremely wealthy off of promoting this story - from his book, his movie, his awards, his lectures, and, not least of all, his partial ownership of companies that sell "carbon offsets" - the global warming equivalent of Catholic indulgences. Whereas indulgences served as "righteous" credits that sinners could buy to keep them out of hell, carbon offsets are pieces of paper that say go ahead and pollute, we'll go plant a tree for you somewhere that will erase your carbon sins.

One final point. In the Science editorial (which is what it was, not an actual scientific study), it talks about how the data from the last 50 years shows a compelling connection between increased greenhouse gases and increased temperatures. The editorial was from 2004. We are now 7 years later, and for more than a decade now, we have not had a significant increase in temperatures - in fact, they have declined, despite the fact that CO2 levels have steadily risen. Here is a graph, from 2002 to 2009, showing that. The temperature data is the blue line:


----------



## Almaviva

emiellucifuge said:


> Your post *reeks of ideological warfare and a hatred* for the 'liberal elite'.


Emiel, please remember one of our forum rules:

"Do not post comments about other members person *or »posting style«* on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«."

From what you said to calling Dr.Mike a hateful ideologue, there is a small step. You didn't really do it, but it's a small step nevertheless. A more productive way to express your opinion would have been something like this:

"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to understand by your post that you disagree with the ideology expressed by those who are called by some the _liberal elite_."

While the difference may seem subtle, the general tone of a discussion is often what either keeps it on a good track, or leads to derailment and animosity. Often when the tone is friendly and focused on the ideas, even strong disagreements can be expressed with no negative consequences.

It's your own thread, man, you have started it, and the way I see these things, when someone starts a thread the person then should treat nicely whoever accepts the invitation and comes in. I often see the OP as someone who shares with the moderators the obligation of maintaining the thread in good standing.

Thanks for your cooperation.:tiphat:


----------



## Toccata

emiellucifuge said:


> I am referring to Climate change.
> 
> I will use the example of the Netherlands. We have a pure-right wing government. One party is skeptic. The other two just dont care.
> 
> In the USA, the Democrats (also at more localised levels...) are working to reduce emissions, give more powers to the EPA, and begin cap and trade programs. At the same time the Republicans recently voted to strip the EPA of CO2-emission-regulating powers.


You haven't actually said much have you. So what is your solution: build more nuclear power stations, or do you reckon wind farms will be sufficient? China is a left wing country so how are you going to get them to stop burning fossil fuels? Do you applaud Iran's plans to build up its nuclear industry? What has Obama done to implement Kyoto? What about the now disappearing Amazon forests, for which the evidence is not so much due to global warming, but of logging.

Why do you think that public opionion on this whole topic has distinctly cooled over the past few years? The answer is probably that public is fed up with it, and no longer believes it to anything like they once may have done. There are simply too many counter-reports questioning the evidence. For example, what do you reckon of the jaw-droppingly scandalous reports about the misuse of data to support climate change mythology, e.g. as reported in the UK's Guardian newspaper a couple of years ago with all the dodgy emails at the University of East Anglia reserach centre, showing that evidence for climate change was based on suspect data?

[Paragraph removed by moderator - please consider this to be a friendly warning but please don't do it again]


----------



## emiellucifuge

Toccata said:


> You haven't actually said much have you. So what is your solution: build more nuclear power stations, or do you reckon wind farms will be sufficient? China is a left wing country so how are you going to get them to stop burning fossil fuels? Do you applaud Iran's plans to build up its nuclear industry? What has Obama done to implement Kyoto? What about the now disappearing Amazon forests, for which the evidence is not so much due to global warming, but of logging.
> 
> Why do you think that public opionion on this whole topic has distinctly cooled over the past few years? The answer is probably that public is fed up with it, and no longer believes it to anything like they once may have done. There are simply too many counter-reports questioning the evidence. For example, what do you reckon of the jaw-droppingly scandalous reports about the misuse of data to support climate change mythology, e.g. as reported in the UK's Guardian newspaper a couple of years ago with all the dodgy emails at the University of East Anglia reserach centre, showing that evidence for climate change was based on suspect data?


Numerous studies including one by PWC (http://download.pwc.com/ie/pubs/renewable_vision_europe_nov2010_exec.pdf) show us that it is completely possible to swtich to renewable in time. This study shows that Europe and North Africa can be 100% on renewables by 2050. www.pwc.co.uk/pdf/100_percent_renewable_electricity.pdf

China built one windmill an hour in 2009
Brazil's (socialist) government has worked effectively to reduce Amazon deforestation (both legal and illegal)










Again, a study was done concerning the East-Anglia 'climategate' (in fact numerous), and found that this had no effect whatsoever on the validity of the scientific claims. I suggest you read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Reports



> Quote removed by moderator - poorly disguised ad-hom


This is a clear ad hom, attacking me to undermine the evidence I have presented. What is your qualification when it comes to climate science? I doubt you are qualified, neither am I, most people are not. Which is why it is completely pointless to start talking about public opinion as if it has any impact on the science.
Dont look at me, look at the evidence, which is all peer-reviewed, published and convincing.



DrMike said:


> The second link was a dead link, and I'm not going to go scouring through class syllabi (the last two links). Regarding the Science link, it was hardly a sturdy assertion that climate change theory is rock solid. It stated that the major societies found the evidence "compelling." It then analyzed the papers published on the subject, and found that they supported this position - well of course they did! For a paper to be published, it has to be reviewed. As we learned from the leaked emails, there are those at the forefront of this debate who are urging editors to ignore studies that challenge the current consensus.
> 
> The author did at least have the intellectual honesty to say, "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it." So, it may be wrong, but we can't afford to not act. Except we also can't afford to act on uncertain conclusions. The draconian measures proposed to reverse this theory (which, lets be clear, the experts say we really can't even reverse it with what is being proposed) will collapse the global economy. There are lots of threats that we face every day, but we can't react with extreme measures for every potential threat - just in case - realistically. I stand a much higher risk of dying in a car accident each and every day than catastrophic global climate change - but I still go out every day.
> 
> I don't have any problem with liberal elites. I have problems with hypocritical liberal elites. Why do they have all these global climate summits, which never accomplish anything, in nice places all over the globe, when they could really just teleconference? What about that great global warming concert they had that generated so much garbage and created a HUGE carbon footprint? Why does Al Gore fly around in a private jet, and live in a huge mansion, when he is exhorting us all to limit our carbon footprints? What about the inconvenient truth that he has become extremely wealthy off of promoting this story - from his book, his movie, his awards, his lectures, and, not least of all, his partial ownership of companies that sell "carbon offsets" - the global warming equivalent of Catholic indulgences. Whereas indulgences served as "righteous" credits that sinners could buy to keep them out of hell, carbon offsets are pieces of paper that say go ahead and pollute, we'll go plant a tree for you somewhere that will erase your carbon sins.
> 
> One final point. In the Science editorial (which is what it was, not an actual scientific study), it talks about how the data from the last 50 years shows a compelling connection between increased greenhouse gases and increased temperatures. The editorial was from 2004. We are now 7 years later, and for more than a decade now, we have not had a significant increase in temperatures - in fact, they have declined, despite the fact that CO2 levels have steadily risen. Here is a graph, from 2002 to 2009, showing that. The temperature data is the blue line:


Sorry here are the real links:
http://www.csun.edu/~hmc60533/CSUN_630E_S2004/climate change/climate_change_2001_tech_summary.pdf
http://hokulea.soest.hawaii.edu/ocn435/papers/1990_Hansen_Lacis.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

I hardly undestand how you would know these are 'syllabi' if you havent read them. (they are not by the way).

I dont understand also, how the hypocrisy of Al Gore and others has any impact on the validity of the scientific claims.

And about that graph - I checked out the website and it looks like these measurements were made by a Dr. Roy Spencer. 
They were made from satellites using microwaves, yet ground-measurements and measurements made on weather-balloons show an increase in temperature.
Also:


> Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Spencer, Christy, and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments.


And another little fact about Spencer:


> "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."


Just saying - there will always be skeptics no matter how compelling the evidence.

Sorry Alma, ill be more careful :tiphat:


----------



## Toccata

emiellucifuge said:


> ... What is your qualification when it comes to climate science? I doubt you are qualified, neither am I, most people are not. Which is why it is completely pointless to start talking about public opinion as if it has any impact on the science.
> Dont look at me, look at the evidence, which is all peer-reviewed, published and convincing.


I accept that people should be fully at liberty to choose whichever side of the climate debate that suits them, without necessarily having to justify it based on relevant academic knowledge of the various sciences involved. I was saying, however, that in order to pontificate learnedly on this topic, and in order to try to convince others, one needs a minimum knowledge of Statistical procedures for testing hypotheses, in addition to a decent knowledge of Physics and Climatology, and whatever else is relevant.

There is also a sizeable amount of real-world politics at issue here, with Universities vying for research funds, and various people on the "make" to enhance their academic reputations. One should not forget the army of glib-tongued politicians jumping on the bandwagon of public opinion trying to distance themselves from the next guys in a pathetic attempt to secure a few more votes from the generally ignorant voting masses. Younger people are particularly gullible with respect to left wing propaganda, and none more so than in the area of climate change and the alleged evils of trans-national companies which are classic pitfalls for the unwary.

Older folk have seen it all before, with all the lies and failures of previous or existing socialist governments. No matter what they think they know, the fact is that many school-kids have little idea what the real world is like beyond the school playground and their often cosseted home lives where everything is paid for someone else. Once they get a job and have lived in the real world a few years in it, and have actually experienced for themselves the stream of lies, exaggerations, deceptions (often self-deceptions) made by politicians to get into power, they will really learn anything useful in life, namely that the older you get the wiser you get.

As for the so-called evidence for fossil-fuel induced "climate change", my advice to any gung-ho believer in all this stuff is to spend some time - like about 2 years studying Statistics on an approved course, followed by some real experience analysing data for a living - and then apply it the data that's been banded around to support the allegations that it's mainly man-made. I think they may then begin to appreciate that what they thought had some validity is at best dubious in terms of evidential support.


----------



## peeyaj

This is getting old, but the posts are really interesting.. Thanks emil, for the links!


----------



## emiellucifuge

It seems one gets more cynical with age too...

We'll see.


----------



## Almaviva

Thanks, emiel; yes, you got a lot more careful in your reply which I appreciate, and yes, there was a poorly disguised ad-hom towards you, which has been removed both from the initial post and your quote of it, in the interest of keeping the peace.


----------



## Very Senior Member

emiellucifuge said:


> there will always be skeptics no matter how compelling the evidence.


 How do you deal with the lack of warming or increase in ocean heat content over the last 12-13 years, given that almost all the warming in the latter half of the 20th century occurred between 1978 and 1998?


----------



## emiellucifuge

Very Senior Member said:


> How do you deal with the lack of warming or increase in ocean heat content over the last 12-13 years, given that almost all the warming in the latter half of the 20th century occurred between 1978 and 1998?


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/


----------



## Very Senior Member

emiellucifuge said:


> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/ocean-heat-content-increases-update/


Would you have the decency to try to explain what the answer is to my question and not to fob me off with a link to some website.


----------



## Very Senior Member

peeyaj said:


> This is getting old, but the posts are really interesting.. Thanks emil, for the links!


There's a good book by Christopher Booker and Richard North that debunks the whole lot of this nonsense being put about by emiellucifuge. You don't need any more than that.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Very Senior Member said:


> Would you have the decency to try to explain what the answer is to my question and not to fob me off with a link to some website.




















These show that the OHC has been increasing



> This isn't going to be the last word on OHC trends, and different groups are going to be publishing their own versions of this analyses relatively soon and updates to the most recent years are still forthcoming. But the big picture is that ocean heat content has indeed been increasing in recent decades, just like the models said it should.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/

Im not a scientist so please dont think im trying to fob you off when I post links to real scientific data.


----------



## Almaviva

Very Senior Member said:


> There's a good book by Christopher Booker and Richard North that debunks *the whole lot of this nonsense being put about by emiellucifuge*. You don't need any more than that.


Just as a clarification, the above is not an ad-hom. Not yet.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Almaviva said:


> Just as a clarification, the above is not an ad-hom. Yet.


Dont worry. As much as the comment irritated me, I do believe it was acceptable.


----------



## jhar26

emiellucifuge said:


> Dont worry. As much as the comment irritated me, I do believe it was acceptable.


I don't believe it's acceptable at all.


----------



## emiellucifuge

emiellucifuge said:


> frustrated by the right's inaction on these issues.


To get back to this ^

The line that separates humanity on the climate-change issue correlates very strongly with the line separates us left v. right also.


----------



## Very Senior Member

emiellucifuge said:


> Im not a scientist so please dont think im trying to fob you off when I post links to real scientific data.


 With reference to your last post, all you have done is post a couple of charts. What do they actually mean? Can you talk me through them, step by step, or are simply repeating conclusions of studies that you don't really understand? What Booker & North show is that the core IPCC models and conclusions (that a large part of global warming can only be explained by inclusion of anthropogenic CO2 in their models) is only valid between 1978 and 1998, and that their models do not imply that CO2 needs to be included in most other parts of the 20th century, including the period from 1999- date. In other words, the IPCC models do not require CO2 to explain developments over most of the last century, including the most recent period.


----------



## Almaviva

jhar26 said:


> I don't believe it's acceptable at all.


Oh well, you're right, I was trying to be tolerant and issue a warning with the "not yet." But it's fine to take it more seriously too.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Very Senior Member said:


> With reference to your last post, all you have done is post a couple of charts. What do they actually mean? Can you talk me through them, step by step, or are simply repeating conclusions of studies that you don't really understand? What Booker & North show is that the core IPCC models and conclusions (that a large part of global warming can only be explained by inclusion of anthropogenic CO2 in their models) is only valid between 1978 and 1998, and that their models do not imply that CO2 needs to be included in most other parts of the 20th century, including the period from 1999- date. In other words, the IPCC models do not require CO2 to explain developments over most of the last century, including the most recent period.


Erm.... you asked my how I could explain that there has been no increase in OHC in the last few years.
I posted graphs showing that indeed the OHC has been increasing as predicted.

Therefore, there is no explanation necessary.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> Erm.... you asked my how I could explain that there has been no increase in OHC in the last few years.
> I posted graphs showing that indeed the OHC has been increasing as predicted.
> 
> Therefore, there is no explanation necessary.


Explanations are always necessary. If you read any scientific paper, you will notice there are figure legends with each and every figure that explain what it is you are looking at. The figures you posted lack those, and I can't tell what the x-axis is for the top panel, what the abbreviations for each line are, how the data were collected, what the shaded grey regions are, what exactly the thick black line represents, what the peaks "Agung" "Chichon" and "Pinatubo" represent. None of that is evident from simply looking at the figures. I could speculate, but we seem to be arguing about specifics here, so you need to get specific.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Lets just use this graph.










Right so the x-axis shows the year, all the way up to 2005. The y-axis is the Ocean Heat content in Joules.

The Pink and Blue lines are previous studies and analyses. The black line is the new analysis which also 'corrects' some previously unexplained anomalies such as the hump during the 70s.

Pinatubo, Agung and Chichon are volcanos which erupted during this time.

In any case please just read this article which explains all the data properly, and much better than I can:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/


----------



## Il Seraglio

Toccata said:


> I absolutely hated the Labour Party which Mrs T defeated in 1979. It later became known as "Old Labour". Its economic policies were a complete disaster for this country, with massive over-intervention. The various "nationalised industries" were a joke for service, and were hugely inefficient. The Labour Govenment pampered to the trade union barons in an uterly disgraceful way, that finally led to catastrophic failure in the late 70's in a "winter of discontent" with public sector strikes all over the place.


The current state of the privatised railways and semi-privatised NHS (which, I admit, is partly, if not mostly, New Labour's fault) is hardly what I would call a model of efficiency. Our railway system bears the unenviable distinction of being one of the most expensive per capita in the world to run despite offering an embarrassingly poor service. The NHS has wasted most of its billions on paying back debts incurred from PFI deals. Another legacy of privatisation.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> To get back to this ^
> 
> The line that separates humanity on the climate-change issue correlates very strongly with the line separates us left v. right also.


And this is one of the biggest problems - it has become a political issue. Whether the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change is a fact is irrelevant to the politicians of the left who have used it to promote social issues that they have been trying long and hard to pass. Greater government control over business, increased regulation, you name it. And the sad thing is that people accept it so blindly. Most analyses admit that, if anthropogenic climate change is real, these grand cap and trade schemes will do little to nothing to impact on it. Let's be realistic. The alarmists have been pointing to the trends of the entire last century as their proof. That is when, they say, the curve has drastically been bent upwards. So how can you hope to do anything about it without moving back to pre-1900 carbon levels? And with the third world now advancing, and China and India beginning their booms, will that even make a bit of difference?

The bigger question is one that isn't being asked. Let's assume that the earth is warming just as the experts say. There is certainly some evidence for it, even throwing out much of what has been exposed as specious in the last little while. But the bigger claim, the even more fantastic assertion, goes almost completely unchallenged - that it is man-made. The earth goes through natural heating and cooling periods. There have been ice ages. We have large natural landmarks that were created by the receding of glaciers that once extended much further south than they now do. Why do they no longer? Because the earth got warmer. Then things got cooler. And so on and so forth. There are numerous factors that drive this. But we are to believe that mankind has now superseded all those other factors and is driving the earth on a collision course with oblivion. The oceans may rise less than an inch in a century, and it is the end of life as we know it. We quibble about tenths of a degree change in temperature over decades and scream that the sky is falling.

Nature creates buffers. There are numerous safeguards put in place that keep things from getting too far out of the "habitable" range. From time to time we stray to the edges of that range, but then nature self-corrects. And humans self correct. As our technology increases, we learn to do things more efficiently. Politicians act as if people enjoy driving cars that get 5 miles per gallon and belch harmful fumes into the air and don't ever want to change. That is like saying people like the old bulky tape Walkman and don't ever want to change. Give them something cooler and better, and they will - exchanging the tape player for the CD player for the MP3 player. Give us a better form of transportation, and we'll eat it up. Give us a better form of energy for our consumption and we'll take it in a heartbeat. But putting up acre after acre of windmills and solar panels to give us less energy than oil and coal? Or an electric car that will drive 30 miles, and then has to be charged overnight?

Scientists may be right here - but they have too often played the boy who cried wolf, and now people are a little more leary when told that the wolf is among us. Sometimes the wolf truly is among us. Sometimes it isn't. And sometimes it turns out that it was more of a chihuahua than a wolf. We tire of tilting at all of the liberal windmills.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I can just as easily say that the right rejects the climate science based purely on their fear that it will lead to increased but necessary regulation of emissions.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> I can just as easily say that the right rejects the climate science based purely on their fear that it will lead to increased but necessary regulation of emissions.


EXACTLY!!!!!! You have proven my point. Rather than this being an issue of science, each political side has seized upon some aspect of this to promote their goals. Liberals were for regulating businesses and human activity long before the issue of anthropogenic climate change was ever hinted at. And now they have what they view as a justification for doing what they always wanted to do. Likewise, conservatives see this as a threat to our freedoms, another reason to restrict what we can and cannot do.

The perfect example to illustrate this is ethanol. Politicians seized on ethanol because it was supposed to be a cleaner fuel source than oil. And so they poured money into farmers who grew crops that could be used to produce ethanol. The result? The price of corn is higher, because less is available as a food source since it is going to ethanol - higher prices in food. More land is being cleared to grow crops that can be used to produce ethanol. This has led to deforestation and other problems. Ultimately, any carbon that has been saved from switching from oil to the less polluting ethanol has been more than made up for by the production and transportation of ethanol. Even Al Gore has conceded this.

So do liberal politicians follow the scientific reality that ethanol ultimately isn't helping reduce our carbon footprint and stop subsidizing it and the unintended consequences? Nope. Because the greater goal was really to subsidize a part of the economy and make it more dependent on the government, and the scientific reality is now inconvenient to that end. In all fairness, Republicans from corn states also aren't leaping to cut off the spigot of funds for ethanol.

Liberals are in line with the scientific consensus on climate change because it provides them with rationalizations for their programs. If a magic bullitt were to come out tomorrow that once and for all disproves anthropogenic climate change, that wouldn't change their policies one iota.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> I can just as easily say that the right rejects the climate science based purely on their fear that it will lead to increased but necessary regulation of emissions.


And who determines that these regulations are necessary, or even effective. The science used to justify the policies may come from scientists, but the sometimes draconian regulations come from politicians. When did they become experts on what will best meet the environmental needs? Show me one policy enacted by government that did, in an efficient and timely manner, exactly what they said it would. You want to tell me that bloated bureaucracies that can't even tie their shoes without first forming an exploratory committee to examine the issue will be able to solve a problem as complex as reversing anthropogenic climate change? They can't even build effective levees to keep flood waters back.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well speak for yourself, but we have highly effective public services here in the Netherlands, and from what Ive seen in a lot of Europe.

A majority of people are happy with healthcare system, public transport is widely used and operates smoothly, etc... etc...

So no, I dont buy into your grudge that governments are bloated bureaucracies that cant tie their own shoes.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> Well speak for yourself, but we have highly effective public services here in the Netherlands, and from what Ive seen in a lot of Europe.
> 
> A majority of people are happy with healthcare system, public transport is widely used and operates smoothly, etc... etc...
> 
> So no, I dont buy into your grudge that governments are bloated bureaucracies that cant tie their own shoes.


Of course they are happy with their healthcare system. Have they ever known any different? In general, you don't live in a third world country, and probably most people who take advantage of your healthcare system end up well in the end. But do you have anything you can compare it to? Have you sought healthcare anywhere else?

Public transport is widely used - again, is there much of an option?

Americans think their healthcare system is the best. Canadians think theirs the best. British think theirs the best. Dutch think theirs the best. Etc.

But lets say that your assertion about the Netherlands is entirely accurate. Are you going to solve the global problems all by yourself? Were your country to do all that the politicians say to reverse global warming, would it be enough? No. You need other countries on board - countries who seem to be far less capable than yours at efficiency (although, to be fair, the smaller the population and the smaller the geographic area of a country, the easier it must be to manage).

But again - what you have shown here is data suggesting that average global temperatures have been rising. But they still don't get to the issue of what the cause is. There is speculation that it is anthropogenic, but there is significant evidence that other factors are at play, and again, when you extend the global temperature chart back beyond the first century A.D., we know that there have been heating and cooling cycles going on for millenia. Why are you so sure that we are the cause of this particular one? And if we were, how do you explain the slower rate of heating, or even cooling, of the last decade despite the steady climb of CO2 levels?


----------



## jhar26

DrMike said:


> Americans think their healthcare system is the best.


How can it be the best if millions of people aren't covered by it?


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Americans think their healthcare system is the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be referring to those Americans who actually have access to insurance covered health care? As for the 48 million who don't...
Click to expand...


----------



## Polednice

Looks like I've missed some interesting discussion over the weekend I've been away! Except the ideological rants on the subject of global warming, which I will not indulge in, because I tire of people on this website who ignore science because populist, misleading journalism and conspiracy theories suit them better 

As for the original test, I came out as:

Economic: -8.25
Social: -7.9

It seems I'm out in the extremes more than anybody else, but then I do have strong opinions! It might be more interesting if we specifically picked some of the more provocative questions and discussed our answers.


----------



## kmisho

DrMike said:


> EXACTLY!!!!!! You have proven my point. Rather than this being an issue of science, each political side has seized upon some aspect of this to promote their goals. Liberals were for regulating businesses and human activity long before the issue of anthropogenic climate change was ever hinted at. And now they have what they view as a justification for doing what they always wanted to do. Likewise, conservatives see this as a threat to our freedoms, another reason to restrict what we can and cannot do.
> 
> The perfect example to illustrate this is ethanol. Politicians seized on ethanol because it was supposed to be a cleaner fuel source than oil. And so they poured money into farmers who grew crops that could be used to produce ethanol. The result? The price of corn is higher, because less is available as a food source since it is going to ethanol - higher prices in food. More land is being cleared to grow crops that can be used to produce ethanol. This has led to deforestation and other problems. Ultimately, any carbon that has been saved from switching from oil to the less polluting ethanol has been more than made up for by the production and transportation of ethanol. Even Al Gore has conceded this.
> 
> So do liberal politicians follow the scientific reality that ethanol ultimately isn't helping reduce our carbon footprint and stop subsidizing it and the unintended consequences? Nope. Because the greater goal was really to subsidize a part of the economy and make it more dependent on the government, and the scientific reality is now inconvenient to that end. In all fairness, Republicans from corn states also aren't leaping to cut off the spigot of funds for ethanol.
> 
> Liberals are in line with the scientific consensus on climate change because it provides them with rationalizations for their programs. If a magic bullitt were to come out tomorrow that once and for all disproves anthropogenic climate change, that wouldn't change their policies one iota.


But it can be shown and has been that largely same cadre of scientists, think tanks and NGO's that oppose the scientific consensus of global warming also opposed the consensus on the hazards of tobacco smoke for instance.

This is clearly a group of people who place their economic and business ideology above sound science.

Even the very type of argument you use about ethanol ignores all the important points that any knowledgeable scientist would make on the issue.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Polednice said:


> It seems I'm out in the extremes more than anybody else, but then I do have strong opinions! It might be more interesting if we specifically picked some of the more provocative questions and discussed our answers.


Ok, good idea.

I found this to be a pretty loaded question that I found difficult to answer:



Political Compass said:


> It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Of course they are happy with their healthcare system. Have they ever known any different? ...
> Americans think their healthcare system is the best. Canadians think theirs the best. British think theirs the best. Dutch think theirs the best. Etc.


I can add a clarification here, because I do know quite well the healthcare systems in America and in France. I have worked as a professional in both, and have been a patient in both. Yes, I know the difference, and I know it very well. I am American, and I *don't* think that our healthcare system is the best. The French system in my opinion (which is also backed by factual evidence given that the World Rank Organization has ranked France the #1 healthcare in the world while America is number 37) is infinitely superior to the American system, even when those Americans covered by good insurance (my case) are considered.


----------



## science

jhar26 said:


> How can it be the best if millions of people aren't covered by it?


Maybe that's what some people want.


----------



## Polednice

> It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.


That was certainly one of the more unashamedly loaded questions. When answering tests or quizzes such as this, I can't help but be immediately conscious of my score (or, in this case, political placement) depending on how I answer - so, the exercise becomes less a genuine discovery of where I am politically, and more of a game to see if I can get my result close to how I already perceive and define myself.

Anyway, with this example, of course it seems to be ludicrous and exploitative that drinking water is a branded consumer product (which always reminds me of an episode of Penn & Teller: ******** where they debunk the industry), but, of course, if I respond to the question truthfully with regards to the branding of _water in particular_, then the test will go on to distort my beliefs by assuming that I despise all consumerism.


----------



## emiellucifuge

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/07/scientific-consensus-climate-change?CMP=twt_fd



> Subsequent research has reached similar conclusions. A survey of 3,146 earth scientists asked the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". More than 90% of respondents had PhDs, and 7% had master's degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes, but the response rate differed markedly according to level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists or didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. By contrast, 97% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.





> This overwhelming consensus among climate experts was confirmed by an independent study that surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus position. It found that 97-98% of climate experts support the consensus. Moreover, the study found that the small number of scientists rejecting the consensus had published, on average, around half as many papers each as the large majority of scientists accepting the consensus position





> Various studies have attempted to ascertain the extent of this consensus. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject "climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 showed that not a single paper rejected the consensus position of man-made warming. Three-quarters of the papers reviewed implicitly or explicitly agreed with the consensus position; the other quarter were focused on analytical methods or historical climate change and made no comment either way.


----------



## nickgray

Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.77

Yep, I'm a far, far left guy.


----------



## Juste Retour

I am for something everyone rants about but no one respects: liberty


----------



## Sieglinde

Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08 


Libertarian Left. Strongly. 


No dictators. No kings. Kthxbai.

Cato Uticensis is my hero.


----------



## MusicSoundsNice

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.31 

Good :S?


----------



## Jacob Singer

DrMike said:


> Of course they are happy with their healthcare system. Have they ever known any different?


Well, I live in America, and there are a hell of a lot of people who - _never having known any different_ - haven't been happy with our healthcare system for a very long time.

Oh yeah, America's healthcare system is great for those people who have money and/or a good job. But for many poor/unfortunate people, it is an absolute disaster. It's tragic, and if you ask me, completely immoral.

Yeah, you'll probably say that it's their fault for not having enough money, but I can't accept that in a country where such excellent medical care _does_ exist. We _do_ have the ability to take care of our own. The question is - will we?

Are we compassionate enough to do so?

Or will we continue to let greedy corporations decide everything for us?

Let me ask you this: How much does an hour of a doctor's time cost, along with the incredibly inexpensive materials needed to put a cast on my arm (i.e. if it were broken)?

And now, how much would a hospital charge for such a service, including all the fees and unnecessary BS?


----------



## Polednice

Particularly as someone with a complicated health condition, from a not-at-all-well-off family, I really cherish the NHS here in the UK, and I absolutely hate imagining what state I'd be in if I were in the USA.


----------



## Jacob Singer

mamascarlatti said:


> Economic Left/Right: -7.00
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59
> 
> I'm happy to be in the same box as the Dalai Lama, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.


Me too. 

Economic Left/Right: -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51


----------



## Saturnus

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

I seem to fit well into the crowd here


----------



## Saturnus

Polednice said:


> Looks like I've missed some interesting discussion over the weekend I've been away! Except the ideological rants on the subject of global warming, which I will not indulge in, because I tire of people on this website who ignore science because populist, misleading journalism and conspiracy theories suit them better


Exactly! Most people take the medical drugs science designed but remain ignorant when it tells them they have to change their comfortable way of life. IMO drugs should be denied to people that don't understand them and don't respect science in general (children excluded of course).


----------



## Guest

Saturnus said:


> Exactly! Most people take the medical drugs science designed but remain ignorant when it tells them they have to change their comfortable way of life. IMO drugs should be denied to people that don't understand them and don't respect science in general (children excluded of course).


Drugs go through extensive testing, and multiple rounds of clinical trials, before they can be brought to market. Climate predictions are just that - predictions based on collected data and fed into a computer model that operates along the parameters that the researcher gives it.


----------



## Saturnus

Of course we can't test the effects of pollution on Earth as we test drugs! The subject is too big and too unique. It's really obvious...
But if everything modern science knows about the human body told you that by taking a certain untested drug it could cure you of the previously unknown lethal disease you had, I doubt you wouldn't take it. If there's only a 50% chance that science is right about pollution I say we should prepare like it's a 100% chance because it's the future of the only habitable planet for humans we're talking about, the risk isn't worth it.


----------



## Elgarian

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03

Seems about right.


----------



## Guest

Saturnus said:


> Of course we can't test the effects of pollution on Earth as we test drugs! The subject is too big and too unique. It's really obvious...
> But if everything modern science knows about the human body told you that by taking a certain untested drug it could cure you of the previously unknown lethal disease you had, I doubt you wouldn't take it. If there's only a 50% chance that science is right about pollution I say we should prepare like it's a 100% chance because it's the future of the only habitable planet for humans we're talking about, the risk isn't worth it.


Sadly, people have died or been seriously hurt by taking drugs that scientists believed should work beautifully. Recently there were some clinical trials that had some disastrous consequences that were not predicted based on animal testing. So no, I would not take an experimental drug not yet tested in humans unless the risk of harm to me with the drug was less than the risk I faced from the disease. But I would need some certainty that I was facing certain death before taking a medicine that wasn't tested. The garbage cans of pharmaceutical companies all over the world are filled with drugs that "should have" worked. The problem is that so many of the "solutions" proposed to fight what people are predicting regarding the climate are not benign. In many instances, they can have very serious ramifications. Take ethanol. Supposedly a clean fuel. And yet even Al Gore has now conceded that we actually generate more carbon dioxide in producing ethanol than we would have using an equivalent amount of fossil fuels. More lands are being cleared to grow crops that can yield ethanol, and all the work that goes into harvesting those crops leave more of a carbon footprint than is saved by using the ethanol.

Can you tell me what the actual chance is that climate change predictions are right? Do scientists give it a 50-50 chance? What is the trigger limit for us to grind massive economies to a halt over predictions? If there was a 50-50 chance that it would rain tomorrow, then I would probably take an umbrella. But there is no serious downside to carrying an umbrella, other than having to carry another thing. But the precautions called for to protect against climate change carry serious burdens - and even then, most of the plans out there probably won't even significantly change things even if the predictions are true.


----------



## kv466

My results just said: hippie...wait a minute, that can't be right!


----------



## emiellucifuge

First of all... What is the obsession with Al Gore? He has no credentials in this field and therefore to attack him is to attack a straw man.

Second. The IPCC has concluded that there is a 90% certainty that humanity is causing climate change. 
Climate models have consistently predicted climate patterns to a high degree of accuracy throughout the last century.

In fact, if there are faults in the IPCC models, they have been shown to underestimate the effects of CO2 increase, and so far real-life measurements in arctic sea ice as well as other things show that the climate is warmer and affecting the earth at a higher rate than predicted.

Finally, Given the high probability that climate change is happening, the economic benefits of preventing this far outweigh the costs. For example, the IPI concluded that the Waxman-Markley bill, Which would have reduced GHG by 83% below 2005 levels by 2050, has benefits that outweigh the costs by 2 to 8 times.
Most non-partisan groups show that preventing AGW will reduce the GDP by about 1% in the next decade. Compare this to the costs incurred through loss of ecosystem services, increased occurence of extreme weather events, drought etc... Etc... The Stern report showed that global GDP change due to a changed climate will be between -5 and -20%.


----------



## Aramis

Personally I'm a Bonapartist. I'm learning horsemanship in order to be ready when he comes back, then I shall join his cavalry. I don't have much more wide politcal views than this one. When it comes to voting I vote for conservative libertarians. But I would prefer voting for Napoleon. But he is not the one to vote for, you have to vote for him WITH YOUR OWN... BLOOOOOD


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> First of all... What is the obsession with Al Gore? He has no credentials in this field and therefore to attack him is to attack a straw man.
> 
> Second. The IPCC has concluded that there is a 90% certainty that humanity is causing climate change.
> Climate models have consistently predicted climate patterns to a high degree of accuracy throughout the last century.
> 
> In fact, if there are faults in the IPCC models, they have been shown to underestimate the effects of CO2 increase, and so far real-life measurements in arctic sea ice as well as other things show that the climate is warmer and affecting the earth at a higher rate than predicted.
> 
> Finally, Given the high probability that climate change is happening, the economic benefits of preventing this far outweigh the costs. For example, the IPI concluded that the Waxman-Markley bill, Which would have reduced GHG by 83% below 2005 levels by 2050, has benefits that outweigh the costs by 2 to 8 times.
> Most non-partisan groups show that preventing AGW will reduce the GDP by about 1% in the next decade. Compare this to the costs incurred through loss of ecosystem services, increased occurence of extreme weather events, drought etc... Etc... The Stern report showed that global GDP change due to a changed climate will be between -5 and -20%.


Al Gore has no credentials in this field? "An Inconvenient Truth" received an Academy Award. The man was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, along with the IPCC. He received a Grammy for the spoken word version of "An Inconvenient Truth." No credentials in the field? He is the rockstar of the climate change community - the single most recognizable face attributed to the movement. He is no straw man.

The IPCC concluded there is a 90% certainty . . . . The IPCC told us that by 2010, climate change should have caused 50 million refugees. That never happened. The areas they predicted would be hit to cause these mass refugee floods have actually experienced a growth in population. And did the climate models predict this more than a decade of no change in temperature? Is this the same IPCC report that relied on articles from mountain climbing magazines as "scientific" evidence of glacial melting? And while you talk about the change in arctic sea ice, could you also comment on the growth of the antarctic ice?


----------



## emiellucifuge

Please note, my previous post referred to the Arcticnot the the Antarctic. Then, it is true that sea ice has been increasing in Antarctica, though this is due to a variety of complex reasons such as changed weather patterns etc.., overall the southern ocean has actaully increased in temperature at a rate far above the global average with +0.17 degrees per decade.
The separate phenomenon of Antarctic land-ice has shown a stark decrease with a rate of loss accelerating at 26Gigatonnes/year^2.

Al gore is not a scientist, he simply uses his resources and public personality to spread awareness of AGW. Attacking him, is hardly the same as refuting the science.


----------



## Saturnus

At some point the economy has to stop using oil as fuel since it's a very finite resource, and there's not much of it left. At some point the global economy has to switch to something more sustainable, like food (by biking), methane or electricity. If we switch now we lower the risk of a global weather catastrophe AND we will have more oil left to produce plastics, but plastics is really an irreplaceable material for a lot of important things. Keeping using oil, and using it for so many unnecessary things (like all this import/export and inefficient transport systems such as in America), is just plain dumb.

And as for Al Gore, he is not important in the slightest way in the discussion about global warming in Europe, and in most places I think, except in the low-tier discussion in America. He got the Nobel peace prize, but who cares? When they gave it to Obama before he had actually accomplished *anything*, it became clear that the peace prize is a competition in being a loveable public figure and nothing else. 
The Nobel Prize is good for science, but its political prizes (Peace and Economy) are perfectly worthless.


----------



## Lenfer

I didn't want to get into this but I'm of the left and believe in a school of anarchism. Therefore I see myself as an *anarquista*! I don't go around breaking things nothing like that although I do look oh so fetching in black.


----------



## violadude

Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69


----------



## Klavierspieler

Economic Left/Right: 2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.36


----------



## violadude

violadude said:


> Economic Left/Right: 0.88
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.69


Can someone tell me what this means. I don't really understand the grading system here.


----------



## Sid James

Saturnus said:


> At some point the economy has to stop using oil as fuel since it's a very finite resource, and there's not much of it left. At some point the global economy has to switch to something more sustainable...


I think whether one believes in human-induced climate change or not, this kind of thinking is basically commonsense. We cannot go on doing the things we are/have been doing to the environment. I think everyone has to agree that it's a good idea to reduce pollution of all kinds, and go towards sustainability, not at all costs, but in sensible ways.

If everyone on this planet lived like those in the nations that are the most wasteful - the worst of whom are those in the USA & we in Australia are probably not far behind - then the planet would be stuffed, it'd be history. Things like recycling have been a good initiative, for example. Other things are becoming more common here, eg. car-pooling. These things are practical ways to reduce our "carbon footprint."

& I'm not being hypocritical here. I live a very simple life, I don't over-consume and waste like most people around the place. If everyone did this & much more, we could make a go of improving things for this planet in the long (& short) term.

Basically, the problem is greed. The Gordon Gekko "greed is good" attitude rules many people's minds still. People should maybe give up a few of their "perks" and "luxuries" and just live simply. Not like neanderthals or "hippies," no one's asking that, but just in a simple more natural way. I think a healthy emphasis is on what we _need_, not always getting things that we _want_ but don't necessarily _need_.

As old Mick Jagger sang, "You can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need." That's kind of my philosophy, personally speaking, I'd rather have that than greed greed greed. Of course "the market" wants none of this commonsense thinking. They want GROWTH, SPENDING, CONSUMPTION. So what does this clash between commonsense and the sad "reality" mean? We have to change our ways, that's what, & that's the tricky bit. If we do nothing, or not enough to change the situation, all these problems we are having with pollution, deforestation, over-fishing, other issues of environmental damage/degradation, etc. are going to get worse.

So just leave your ideology at home, all that is useless, what we need more of is COMMONSENSE (esp. our politicians & the other "powers that be")...


----------



## emiellucifuge

violadude said:


> Can someone tell me what this means. I don't really understand the grading system here.


Positive means you're on the Right or Authoritarian side of the scale. Negative means you're on the left/libertarian side. The greater the magnitude of the number, the more strongly you lean to that side. Its out of 10 each way.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

The wording of that test seems slanted toward making people choose answers that get libertarian results. It does not seem very well rounded.


----------



## Lenfer

violadude said:


> Can someone tell me what this means. I don't really understand the grading system here.


I think *Klavierspieler* took the *"Political Compass Test"* that can be found at the link below.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test


----------



## Bix

Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54 

I'm more Gandhi than Gandhi


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Is it a new thing that we can see each others political standings in the poll now? Neat, now I can see all my compatriots.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Is it a new thing that we can see each others political standings in the poll now? Neat, now I can see all my compatriots.


Which are very few, unfortunately; not that I find that surprising.


----------



## BalloinMaschera

My score: 
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Klavierspieler said:


> Which are very few, unfortunately; not that I find that surprising.


Indeed. I don't expect to find a lot of people like us here.


----------



## Lenfer

*Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.72*


----------



## Lenfer

Bix said:


> Economic Left/Right: -6.88
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54
> 
> I'm more Gandhi than Gandhi


You seem like a very nice person *Bix*, *Gandhi* however was a terrible bigot. It was partly this bigotry that led to the division of *India*. I'd rather have conversation with you over *Gandhi* any day. :tiphat:


----------



## TresPicos

Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

Pretty much like Bartok, my favorite composer. 

I guess that makes me a "Right progressive" here in Sweden.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Just a reminder that most of everyones results can be found here:
http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/emiellucifuge/22-tc-political-poll.html


----------



## Lenfer

emiellucifuge said:


> Just a reminder that most of everyones results can be found here:
> http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/emiellucifuge/22-tc-political-poll.html


Thank you *Emiellucifuge* for taking the time to do that. :tiphat:


----------



## Bix

Lenfer said:


> You seem like a very nice person *Bix*, *Gandhi* however was a terrible bigot. It was partly this bigotry that led to the division of *India*. I'd rather have conversation with you over *Gandhi* any day. :tiphat:


I'm better then, I'm certainly no bigot


----------



## Sid James

No, L'Enfer, I think Ghandi was against the partition of India. He actually went on a long hunger strike, in very old age (made him very sick/weak, etc.) protesting against the warring Hindu and Muslim factions. It was *Muhammad Ali Jinnah*, the first Governor-General of Pakistan, who was a big advocate of the partition of the Indian subcontinent. I studied Indian history, esp. the move towards independence, so I think I know what I'm talking about...


----------



## Lenfer

Sid James said:


> No, L'Enfer, I think Ghandi was against the partition of India. He actually went on a long hunger strike, in very old age (made him very sick/weak, etc.) protesting against the warring Hindu and Muslim factions. It was *Muhammad Ali Jinnah*, the first Governor-General of Pakistan, who was a big advocate of the partition of the Indian subcontinent. I studied Indian history, esp. the move towards independence, so I think I know what I'm talking about...


Dear Sid, I didn't mean he was for it but he was very pro Hindu and that scared the Muslim population. I'm not an expert so you are indeed more knowledgeable than I on the matter. I know he did not speak to the British for a long time and entered a peroid of non-cooperation. So the British dealt with *Muhammad Ali Jinnah* instead who was pro partition.

Look forward to reading your reply *Sid*.


----------



## Rasa

With "our race", do they refer to the human race or skin colour... Because humans are pretty obviously far superior to other races!

These questions are really bad, leading and can be interpreted multiple ways.


----------



## mmsbls

emiellucifuge said:


> Just a reminder that most of everyones results can be found here:
> http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/emiellucifuge/22-tc-political-poll.html


I just saw this plot. It's amazing that no one falls in the upper right quadrant. I even checked on those who reported after the plot was made. A few are close, but overall TC members (or at least those reporting on their results) are skewed far to the economic left/ libertarian side. I'm not surprised that this group would score primarily in the lower left quadrant, but I'm somewhat surprised at the degree.

Thanks for the plot, emiellucifuge.


----------



## Sid James

Lenfer said:


> Dear Sid, I didn't mean he was for it but he was very pro Hindu and that scared the Muslim population. I'm not an expert so you are indeed more knowledgeable than I on the matter. I know he did not speak to the British for a long time and entered a peroid of non-cooperation. So the British dealt with *Muhammad Ali Jinnah* instead who was pro partition.


Well what you are saying speaks more to _realpolitik_ than Ghandi's philosophy about what he was aiming to achieve regarding the subcontinent. Ghandi was aiming at unity between the various factions - Muslim, Hindu and some others - but what panned out in reality when independence finally came was an entirely different matter. In any case, both Ghandi & Jinnah were assasinated, talking to how various radical groups were not happy with what either of them did, said, achieved, etc. This instability and tendency towards extremism has lasted to this day in both India & Pakistan (but I'm not that sure about Bangladesh), there has unfortunately been no shortage of political assasinations in these countries in more recent times.

For me personally, Ghandi revolutionised things like views of the individual's relation to the political system as a whole. In terms of that & non-violent protest, he infuenced many others like Dr Martin Luther King & Ang San Su Kyu. Ghandi's legacy is not only for the peoples of the subcontinent or just Hindus, but the whole world...


----------



## TresPicos

Just for the record: my vote should have been on "Left progressive", not "Right progressive". Now everyone will think I'm a tory or a... republican. 

No, wait, it still has "progressive" in it. Phew!


----------

