If there was anything worthwhile in the original post, it might be interesting to go back there and try to start discussing that.
.... just a thought
Hi Ardy. Resistance from the gang. It's easier to just keep on making things up faster and faster, it seems.
With respect to the poll questions
1/
How much do you agree or disagree with the following
statement? "I could easily change my mind about global
warming."
Any comments on what kind of thoughts might be stimulated, for instance, on the question's contextual meaning; the question as it could be taken wrt the readers' internal state ?
I think one could be tempted to assume that answering to the negative, is an indicator of some negative intellectual or ethical characteristic, or quality, to many "progressive" thinkers.
It's being "inflexible", "dogmatic", "unwilling to set aside bias and examine the contrary evidence", etc.
Personally, I would be inclined to suspect that people who
would change their mind easily, would be those who have not invested time researching and reasoning; they know their reason for believing one way or the other is based on shaky ground.
To change an opinion based on long consideration, would seem to require very compelling, very well documented information, or a devastating hit to a former construct.
Given those conditions, then if one asked "would you change your mind easily about GW", immediately upon completion of the careful checking and analysis..."...you might get a "yes" instead of a "no".
If the question were put like this "
Would you change your mind about GW, if some scientists find that there is some information conflicting with the consensus opinion ?
...it would flavour the poll differently.
However, it is their poll, and their question list - so I'll just read through and point out things as I notice them.
