The Top 1% is Stalling the Economy

[TimG]

To recap: you indicate that there isn't widespread support, I provide the numbers, you say that people lie to the pollsters.

People don't lie to the pollsters but people who quote polls generally pick the ones that ask the questions that give the answers they like. Here is a poll that supports my claim that belief in AGW is superficial:

Most Americans, according to the survey, believe that climate change is occurring and that it causes serious problems, including more frequent and severe natural disasters. But only 21 percent said they would be willing to pay 50 percent more at the pump or for electricity bills to fight it. Fifty-four percent say they would be unwilling to do so. The rest were unsure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/climate-change-poll-energy-costs_n_2067125.html

Green policies are being rolled back around the world as people realize that it hurts them in the pocket book for little gain.

The poll obviously does not answer why people are not willing to put their money where their mouth is but, generally speaking, people like to say things that make them sound "good" when it costs them nothing.

Edited January 22, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

People don't lie to the pollsters but people who quote polls generally pick the ones that ask the questions that give the answers they like.

We were discussing widespread support for AGW. MH posted the results of a poll that asked people about AGW. How is that cherry picking a poll? It asks the exact question we were talking about.

[TimG]

It asks the exact question we were talking about.

No - you brought the topic up by claiming that AGW is widely accepted despite objections by a minority. I interpreted this to mean that the need for anti-CO2 measures is widely accepted and pointed out that people may offer lip service to the cause but don't really support it. Michael offered a poll showing the fact that people pay lip service which was irrelevant to my point since I acknowledged that people pay lip service. I responded with a poll that shows that my original claim that the support for anti-CO2 policies is actually quite weak. Edited January 22, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

No - you brought the topic up by claiming that AGW is widely accepted despite objections by a minority. I interpreted this to mean that the need for anti-CO2 measures is widely accepted and pointed out that people may offer lip service to the cause but don't really support it. Michael offered a poll showing the fact that people pay lip service which was irrelevant to my point since I acknowledged that people pay lip service. I responded with a poll that shows that my original claim that the support for anti-CO2 policies is actually quite weak.

I didn't say anything about anti-CO₂ measures. I said AGW is broadly accepted to point out the difference between broad acceptance and universal acceptance. You're making the claim that people only pay lip service to AGW and your only proof is a poll that asks an entirely different question. What makes it even funnier is that you've said that your own position is consistent with the results of both polls: you accept AGW is real and you oppose anti-CO₂ measures.

Edited January 22, 2014 by cybercoma

[TimG]

I said AGW is broadly accepted to point out the difference between broad acceptance and universal acceptance.

That is not all you said:

"It won't be "universally accepted" because there will always be a few people that like to be contrarians for the sake of it."

So who are the "contrarians"? Given our prior discussions on the topic it is pretty clear that you intended to imply that I was a "contrarian" which means you could only be talking about anti-CO2 policies since I do accept the basic premise of AGW. If you did not intend to imply that I was contrarian in the context of that comment you should have made it clear. Edited January 22, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

If you don't deny AGW, then obviously you're not one of the contrarians I'm talking about.

[eyeball]

I didn't say anything about anti-CO₂ measures. I said AGW is broadly accepted to point out the difference between broad acceptance and universal acceptance. You're making the claim that people only pay lip service to AGW and your only proof is a poll that asks an entirely different question. What makes it even funnier is that you've said that your own position is consistent with the results of both polls: you accept AGW is real and you oppose anti-CO₂ measures.

I think when you're trying to reason with someone who's capable of arguing that disbelief equals belief you can expect some funny results. I fail to see why a person's fundamental confusion over what's real and unreal wouldn't taint much of what they think or say about everything else - it's all suspect. Given the vast majority of the human race exists in this state of confusion it's not surprising so much of what goes on in the world is so FUBAR.

Religion really does make everything worse.

[Argus]

The trouble with subjective measures is one must trust the people constructing the measure. Since we live in a polarized society there is little chance that a subjective measure will be broadly accepted. Different sides will adopt different subjective measures that suit their political agendas. In the end the measure will be useless.

I disagree. We can all generally agree less crime, less poverty, less anger, hatred, less sickness, depression and suicide, are all indications of a better society.

And I think it would be generally agreed that you get none of this without a healthy economy.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Argus

[TimG]

I disagree. We can all generally agree less crime, less poverty, less anger, hatred, less sickness, depression and suicide, are all indications of a better society.

Sure but you can't come up with an objective measure for things like poverty, anger and hatred. Just look at arguments over the significance of the LICO to see how even purely mechanical calculation can become a politically partisan question.