9 Responses

1. Sorry, but YA does not always seem reliable. You will need to look at links (if provided), evaluate the quality of the sources, and decide who are the best people to direct you towards an answer. But in this section, you really have to read and work at getting a reasonable answer.

   Read the some of the “thumbs down” comments too. It might help you figure out what is reliable if you spend a lot of time on this board. I rate answers in this section all the time if I don’t have time to answer or if great answers are already given.

2. I think both groups may be guilty of this. And I agree it is rather pathetic. In the politics section it makes a lot more sense than in the science or global warming section as politics is based on personal belief. There is, however, a ‘movement’ amongst the anti-science crowd in here that tries and paints science as belief as well. It’s ridiculous.

   I post actual data, such as the measured and scientific fact that sea level rises and falls at different rates around the world attributable to such things as isostic rebound, gravitational changes due to ice mass loss, warming and cooling of certain ocean regions, and so on. Then they continue their charade stating that “Sea level around the world reaches it’s own level’. they fail to understand that the oceans do not act like a glass of water yet, when you tell them, they do not understand and ignore it. Similarly I’ve tried to explain that greenhouse gas only absorb specific frequencies of radiation and to find the cause of temperature variation we need to look at those frequencies. They ignore this even when I post data or scientific evidence and continue stating what they’ve stated all along when reality is staring them right in the face.

3. hey dook must have 35 accounts, this is what happens when kids don’t have a life

4. Any “shreds of reliability” were shredded long ago. The multiple accounters rove around in waves. Usually the anti-science deniers of climate change are the greater practicioners, but we also had a round of anti-anti-science cheating not long ago.

   “Point of this section” ?: Training ground for entry-level anti-science crackpot wannabes. Plus a few pro-science posters practicing rebuttal thereof, and the odd confused student who waited ’til the last minute to start his homework. Some of us also practice irony and ergonomic stress.

   P.S. Denier dupe Jerry is usually tame, and sometimes even friendly, but he is lying like a dead dog this time. I have never had more than one account here.

5. Both groups are responsible. I believe the rash of thumbs down started with the deniers. They do thumbs down in short time periods as well making me think some our on contacts list.

   They also post answers that contain the most BS links and reasoning assuring themselves thumbs down ratings. What is important is the voting so you can really ignore the thumbs down stuff. Look at the content of the members who got thumbs down. It is frequently easy to understand why it happened.

   I get a lot of thumbs down because I intentionally rub the deniers the wrong way. That doesn’t bother mew because the idea is to help members who post legitimate questions rather than calling them name of posting the same pat BS answers all the time. Members come here for help and they deserve real answers to real questions. I believe. a lot of the BS answers have driven away new and old members.

6. Y!A needs moderators if it’s ever going to attain any shred of credibility. Some people need to be site-banned.
   I saw a guy write something like, “deforestation is a liberal propaganda, there are more trees now than ever before” to answer a kid trying to do a homework assignment – this on a a science thread…it boggles my mind.

7. You have reasoned well. These phoney low lives have scorched all credibility on this site. Their unscientific ranting and raving is obnoxious, but I sometimes find humorous. So it is only for entertainment purposes. As the runner up champion to being thumbed down into oblivion I can attest to their viciousness. I once answered a question, “If you could change the world what one thing would you do?” My answer was simply, “Tell the truth.” For that answer I was awarded 13 thumbs down in less than a half an hour. Ha! Ha! It should be evidence that the ‘environmental movement who is for the benefit of all mankind and saving the world’ doesn’t like the truth. They side with Goebbels.

   I believe that some on this site are paid to incite ignorance and confusion. Others are just misled. But both can be vicious which is a sign of desperation.

   However, I have learned from this site and from both sides. We have one on this site who is on the greenie side who is pretty darn good with science. But in the end his science is only good for theorizing and if it were to be set up in a laboratory would prove nothing. But it is stimulating. As to most of the rest they are PHD claiming clowns whose actions prove them out to be grade school dropouts. (But they are a source of entertainment.)

   So don’t give it up entirely. You usually have to remove a lot of dirt to get to the gold.

8. The trolling here is actually pretty low grade compared to some other sections on answers, sometimes you see these professional troll drop in here usual with short empty questions often not related to climate or even denial of climate, these guys often have answer rating of 75% or higher, I saw one with a rating of 99% and a weekly score of over 8,000 points.
   I do find sagebushs comment funny “Their unscientific ranting and raving is obnoxious”
   this from a guy who uses blogs and youtube as the primary sources for his rants and then wonders why people give him thumbs down, personal I put little credibility in the thumbs system on Answers as it would seem deniers play the very game you are talking about, of late they have tried to blame shift and claim that we are doing this, but you only have to look at the answers, most “alarmists” here put in real answers with links to science sites deniers use as I said blogs, youtube and newspaper stories as their recent multitude of questions on a rather empty bit of rhetoric from the daily Mail shows
   Sagebush has the usual string of third grade insults although there is something amusing about him running down the education of others while being unable to spell “phoney” correctly.
   Of course the aim of this is to try and drive away those who offer real answers.
   Answer has shown little interest in stopping this behavior, they seem to do little to police the site, the old lead denier had to become quite obvious in his cheating before his account was cut off, if Answer applied the same sort of ID checks sites like Facebook do, I think you would see many of the lead deniers activity drastically reduced, but it’s not all bad Answers have made some recent changes to reduce points cheating, If they take the extra step and make some sort of ID check (and make it retroactive) the trolls would disappear overnight, and we might get real debate here, instead of nonsense like this
   http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Amqiex1lkxZgDnIPPgeCgrUnCnRG;_ylv=3?qid=20121014090435AAhuZv0
   The surprise in the answer chosen is not the 6 thumbs down but the 4 thumbs up

9. The problem is a conflict between two groups, one which wants to discuss issues from the scientific perspective and another which wants to discuss the issue from a political perspective. Some genuine skeptics here bring up interesting points although they often show a political bias. I’ll flatter myself by claiming to be a true skeptic because all I’m trying to do is find out more about why we are experiencing increasing extreme weather events and climate change in my area (upper midwest) so I can adapt my business plans and practices to survive-I’m actively engaged in agriculture, commercial/residential real estate and seasonal businesses and all are impacted by weather; the mild winters over the last several years and drought this year struck the ag market of course; this year severe weather ripped the roofs off some buildings I own in Ohio and in recent years damaged other structures. extended warm seasons are benefiting our construction business; in another Region our seasonal business interests are being impacted by longer summers and milder winters. In fact, here in my home region things have changed so much that hardiness zones have shifted and we can grow things today that we couldn’t 15 years ago. I’m no scientist, but I am analytical and a lot of the links as well as the interpretations of the participants here are helpful. Politically, I am relatively neutral as well, but because of the nature of my business and income level, Republican policies have more negative impacts on me than Democratic; here we also find maximum profit in agriculture and commercial real estate by being early adapters of good environmental practices and the development of alternative energy, which shifts our support to the Democratic side of the ledger.

   There is a lot of frustration and name-calling on both sides of the argument about AGW, primarily by one or two people on one side and most of the participants on the other. You can see some of it in the answers to your question today. But everyone gets frustrated from time to time, me included; I want information and interesting comments that direct me toward a greater understanding of where the research stands and a lot of the anti-AGW commentary does not provide useful or accurate information. On the other hand, I am distinctly uncomfortable with some of the positions taken by the pro-AGW activists that demand sweeping government regulations and policy changes globally that will impact us both geopolitically and economically to mitigate a problem we don’t yet fully understand; I have read that the investment may be as much as 14 trillion dollars, but no one who promotes or objects to policies designed to mitigate AGW has been able to provide details as far as how that money will be spent or how much will be paid by the United States over what period of time

   It seems to me that some of the absolutist positions taken by each side are absolutely silly when almost no one in the scientific pretends to know exactly what the outcome of potential AGW may be and when it may begin to really affect us…or if it has already or ever really will in a way that we can’t adapt to. Yet some people are convinced it is a ‘hoax’ and adamantly stick to that line; others seem willing to risk everything to try to solve a problem we can’t quite yet quantify. I object to both extremes.

   As far as thumbs-down go, I don’t know what is going on although some claim multiple accounts and a conspiracy on one side or the other to hide responses to questions and silence the opposition. I do see evidence that some-if not most-of the participants here give thumbs down based not on the quality of the answer but on the position of the answerer. I generally get at least a couple of thumbs downs regardless of how neutral my responses are, and when I am active here in this forum (during my breaks and leisure when I am not traveling) I often note the timing of thumbs down via seeing them appear at the same time other answers from specific respondents and participants occur. This may be coincidental in some cases, but the timing is pretty consistent and several of the respondents have singled me out and called me names in their responses so I know what they think of me,despite the fact that I am a born and bred capitalist and not a communist by the nature of my business interests. I think people who are political activists should focus more on the economic and geopolitical issues and less on the science, which many are obviously not well enough endowed to discuss, and the environmental activists should stick to the science and focus less on the geopolitical and economic policies they favor when many of them are unable to discuss the details and specifics. And everyone should just stop calling other people names and accusing the other side of starting something they are perpetuating by their own behavior.