Are there any scientists left here in the global warming category?
Or can we change the name to Global Warming Deniers-in-training.
Linlyons, Joe, and other informed non-scientists also gone.
Thanks folks, for training ignorant crackpots by patiently explaining over and over and over how to be less stupid with their copy-pasted Marshall-Crichton-Heartland disinformation, for not reporting their violations, for not starring legitimate science questions (if you even bother to look at them at all) and for never blocking the anti-science denialists. Half the top 10 answerers are deniers. Congrats, now we can continue ignoring real issues and failing to exchange real information about climate change.
I wonder which denialists will get best answer from Sagebrush on this one? Be sure to not report his plagiarism, so we can continue to get both "sides" of the "debate." All students deserve their "uncensored" As on science exames, and whether people landed on the moon or not is theory which everyone deserves the right to make up his or her own mind about.
"You don't really know what the square root of 16 is, no one does." See 1:06-12 here:
Please do NOT answer Sagebrush's stolen copy of this question. He has copied over a dozen of my questions verbatim already, and he generally gives Best Answer of his copies of my question to fellow anti-science deniers. So if you give a pro-science answer to his stolen copy of one of my questions., you are wasting your time educating him on how become a less lame liar, and helping other deniers pile up best answers.
Please DO report his plagiarism as a violation of the guidelines.
Please follow my "additional detail" remark immediately above if you think this site should be a place for obtaining informed and honest and answers to bonafide questions.
Please go with what I said above the "additional details" line, if you like having this category increasingly dominated by ignorant, duped and dishonest deniers of science. (To dominate, it suffices for them to stifle and derail pro-science Qs and As: even if they don't "win" a single "argument.")
Edit to JC: The sympathetic advice is much appreciated. I would say, however, that this is fundamentally neither a personal gripe or a legal issue, but rather part of an extended but muchly un-listened-to observation that the pro-science people here have been (for as long as I've been following the category. etc., over 2 years) systematically shooting themselves in their collective foot: bending over backward to quite uselessly argue point by by point, over and over and over again, with stubborn crackpots and dupes who could not care less about facts, truth or logic. As I have pointed out before, if this were the History of the Holocaust section, neo-Nazi nitwit deniers would surely not occupy half of the top ten slots on the top ten best answers list. The main difference to Holocaust denial is that Climate Science does not concern a 15 year past episode in Europe, but rather the future of the global economy for many centuries, half the U.S. Congress does not publicly endorse Holoc
...Holocaust denial, and no industry (like the fossil fuel industry for climate denial) has trillion dollars of future revenues to protect by propping up Holocaust denial.
- JCLv 57 years agoFavorite Answer
For me personally it used to be a much more useful category but recently it seems more like a place for doddering old men to come vent their spleen and impotent middle aged failures to rant. That has a value in terms of 1) entertainment and 2) sequestering people in a harmless corner of the internet.
Every now and again something really interesting and useful about climate change comes up, but I miss the people who could look at the actual issues and analyze them.
RE your dispute with Sagebrush...I'd just let it go if I were you, but I'm not sure I could take my own advice if someone was interfering with my constitutional right of free association on the basis of a claim related to another constitutional right, which is of course freedom of speech. If it is any consolation, in that conflict and based in constitutional law, you would almost certainly prevail.
EDIT: Your point about the passivity toward the systematic and deliberate interference with the purpose of this category is well taken but there are multitudes of examples of it throughout history. Most recently in the U.S. political process, which is being very clearly mirrored here in the Global Warming section of Y/A and obviously so, since the ones who are practicing it are also generally of the political persuasion trying to regain power in this country. Interesting how select constitutional rights are so often trumpeted without any apparent consideration of the inherent conflicts-the exercise of one constitutional right does not trump another when they conflict. Your right to free association is not trumped by the right to free speech if your rights are compromised by that exercise, particularly deliberately as is being done here. Thanks for making the point-I have no answer to solve that one.
- Gary FLv 77 years ago
You'll have to be more specific. If you mean people who have an earthly education in science then there are probably a handful. If you are including people who had supernatural scientific knowledge bestowed upon them miraculously when the Climategate emails were released in November 2009 then the number is several times greater.
Members of the latter group can be easily identified by their similarity to General Jack D Ripper:
- ChemFlunkyLv 77 years ago
Well... I'm a scientist by Oregon petition standards (I have a BS in biology). I suspect several, possibly many others are similarly qualified.
And the patient explanations may not change the minds of the denialists, but they at least hopefully convince any confused children who wander by to lazyweb their homework.Source(s): Please check out my open questions.
- d/dx+d/dy+d/dzLv 67 years ago
The genuine science questions have been answered and are on the record. Scientists have other priorities in the real world and need to ration time. Thanks for keeping the zombie denialists penned up.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous7 years ago
? Option 1 adapt.
Option 2 die.
Don't be such a drama queen, this issue should be well studied and planned out, I'm more interested in not rushing into things blindly and forming a plan that takes into account the individual's self interests, panic finger pointing and political games will not produce the results we need.
- ElizabethLv 77 years ago
Well, at least we're documenting the deniers' stupidity for future generations to study when Y/A is archived away.
I guess that's multiple thumbs-down for me from the deniers.
- WendyLv 44 years ago
I don't see any on your side
- 7 years ago
i dont know who are they but i believe in the cause and effects of cholofloroucarbone. we must change now drastically before its too late. i can feel it. i live in south east asia, the tropics and its freaking hotter.