Ask500

Yeah but that's not the question Chipmonk. The question doesn't ask you to guess which one will be the most picked answer - it asks you "how likely" is it that most people will vote for "very unlikely". Now, if you think about THAT question and you're response is that you're not sure, well, fair enough I suppose (since nobody knows, and you haven't got much basis for guessing) but really I think putting "not sure" is a bit boring... I wish that wasn't one of the options...

Well so far, the "Very Unlikely" seems to be at least slightly likely. Just don't chicken out and go for the "not sure" option guys, take your courage in your hands and go for the paradox: let's turn the very unlikely into very likely!

This is known as a "loaded question", similar to "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?": you can't answer it without helping to confirm the preconceptions of the asker. In this case the preconception is that Obama has a major shortcoming which is one of the four listed. I'm not answering the question because I don't believe any of the four mentioned could be called his "major shortcoming".

So the article does not support your comment at all!

Both terms are heavily used to refer to the same thing - just Google them or check them in on-line reference works and you'll get the idea. I preferred "global warming" because it suggests the whole planet, and it suggests which way the climate is supposed to be changing. "Anthropogenic global warming" would have been more accurate, but also more confusing for some. (However, with hindsight I think the rest of my question is far too wordy)

Okay sorry, I should have done that: I've returned to this site for the first time in a year and was intersted to see if the consensus here had changed. From what I see in previous questions, Global warming believers would be expected to outnumber skeptics on this site by 2:1 or more. Sorry if I'm going over old ground. On the other hand, if it's coming up repeatedly, there is a reason for that too. Also, I'm interested to see if people have changed their views, I can't see another question which has asked about that.

yeah... or Iniesta

What do you mean by self-government?

I think that for many issues, the closer that decision-making is to the people affected by the decision, the better. So that means you devolve power to local authorities when you can. But aren't there also global issues which we can't tackle properly unless we have a global authority? And the best kind of global authority is one that we all decide on and can get rid of if we don't like it.

Here's a recent article on world government I've just found from the conservative British paper Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

The author sees a world government based on EU-model as a possibility because "it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature" - like climate change, the economic crisis and terrorism.

On the other hand, here's a website campaigning for a "democratic world government" more like the above question proposes: http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/

Also lots of info at wikipedia:

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

(I'm not associated with any of these groups and I think there are enormous practical problems in the world government idea, but utopian or not, I think it's interesting to put it on the agenda)

No, it's democracy, which has never been introduced on a global scale. At least that's the key aspect of the question; later it's up to the voters to decide whether they want a government that is more socialist or more capitalist.