Is it better to ignore or answer global warming denier questions?

Question

I usually answer global warming denier questions just to make sure the correct information is presented in case a true skeptic reads them, even though I know my answer will be ignored by the asker. For example:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Au8RumujlVax4iY8aCNR8OoFxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20080331104250AAKpKri

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkTR1UoGmkndc6ifCCXE34Hty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080330112838AARLB5v&show=7#profile-info-amgAgziHaa

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmU4KeCLjjgGxqOM58WLBbDty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080331082014AAHBz1h&show=7#profile-info-qMmPQce8aa

We all know the deniers are going to ignore the AGW proponents' answers and probably pick gelatin as best answer. My question is - do you think it's worth the effort to make sure the correct information is presented in these questions, or are we better off just ignoring these disingenuous 'questions'?

Answer 1

There has to be someone on this forum who can stand up to the insanity.

Answer 2

Wrong section.

Correct section: Mental health.

Answer 3

The term junk science was actually coined for the study of GW. (Danna), (GNCP), you do know not all physicist have been right. As brilliant as they may be, sometimes they miss the obvious. You do know about the Information Paradox and Hawking's, I presume? He was man enough to admit he was wrong, that by itself proves he has integrity. But it only amused the scientific community. So I suggest, "let the amusement continue." I'm always ready for a good laugh.

Come to think of it, I've never heard/read anything very scientific from you. Mostly old rehash from links.

Answer 4

Dana, you do a public service by answering these qeustions and providing the relevant sources for us lay people to understand the issue.  You also do a good job and educating us people without any technical knowledge.

So, for the moment, forget about convincing the global deniers...I have banged out quite a few keys on my keyboard debating 9-11 denialists and which brings me to a final point...

The global warming "deniers" are like the 9-11 "deniers" in that they read a few papers from skeptics, or watch Glen Beck or read Michael Crichton and they feel they are an expert now...just like the 9 11 deniers all talk in dense verbiage about the physics of building demolitions and the the free fall of objects etc., global warming deniers talk in deep scientific terms about topics they know little or nothing about...

They are just being ridiculous and so pseudo intellectual...Imagine, we can just do away with the earth sciences, do away with Universities...we can all read a paper or two on the internet, watch glen beck and become "climate experts" overnight...

ANd final, final point, the reason you are not making any headway is because this has become a kind of religion for them...all these conspiratorialists believe that any counterevidence to their theory is just part of the greater conspiracy...it's like religious deniers of evolution.

And also many of them fear that global warming and the remedies and changes societies have to make will also attack another religion of theirs, namely "the american way of life" which for the last 150 years means ignoring the environment for the sake of making money...That probably has to change and they don't want to change that religion of theirs either.

So don't think you are convincing the fanatics, it's not about that...you are helping us lay folks out here  become better informed and better thinkers.

And for that I thank you.

Answer 5

Does it make a difference, you are losing the debate anyways.

The more you know the less you care -- at least that seems to be the case with global warming. A telephone survey of 1,093 Americans by two Texas A&M University political scientists and a former colleague indicates that trend, as explained in their recent article in the peer-reviewed journal Risk Analysis.

"More informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming," states the article, titled "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the USA."

The diminished concern and sense of responsibility flies in the face of awareness campaigns about climate change, such as in the movies An Inconvenient Truth and Ice Age: The Meltdown and in the mainstream media's escalating emphasis on the trend.

Gee Ken:  Nearly half.  That means less than 50%.  So the majority do not.  You are saying that is a victory?

Answer 6

Your answer could always be the same true true true true true true true cause I'm smarter than you you you you you you so there your it no touch backs.

Answer 7

The question "is global warming real" has been posted on this forum millions of times, and each time the same answers come up from the same types of people.   There's no point arguing with fools.  Just forget it.

Answer 8

It's best to use good scientific practices to discuss global warming. Statistics is an excellent platform for the discussion since it's arbitrary and not easily spun into a pro or con position.

Knowing that you need a good an accurate data set before you can make any statistical decision is one of the fundamental principles of statistics. In simple terms, garbage data in , garbage data out.

Taking this into a global warming discussion, we have a very small data set of global warming data. 100 years or so in comparison to the 6 billion years of earth data. I know we have some ice core samples that go longer, but: 1) they are point samples and since we are talking about GLOBAL warming they aren't statistically significant, 2) even if you want to take them into account, it's still small in comparison with the age of the earth.

With that being said, no one can predict what is the normal variation of the earths Global Temperature, since we don't have adequate data. Since we don't know the normal variance, we can't conclude that we are currently outside the variance or going to be.

It's just simple statistics.

Answer 9

I think it's a waste of time, just as I think the people in question are a waste of space.   In the past week I've read how the Vikings picked the name Greenland because the real estate in question was a tropical paradise at the time (disproving AGW), how CO2 has no special relationship to heat (disproving AGW), enough about Al Gore to fill the yearvbook of every denier and skeptic on the planet (disproving AGW), even Hillary Clinton (disproving AGW).  There is such a thing as "beyond redemption" Dana, and I think the crowd during the week has thinned out to pretty much those folks, with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions.  When I was in high school reading about this stuff I would never have imagined that 40 years later I'd be involved with the dumbest discussions imaginable on such a fundamental subject.  Imagine if the topic was quantum mechanics or soap carving!  I'm really sick of hollering down the rain barrel about the freakin MWP.  Enough already.  Even if all the facts were straight (as if), you have to ignore all differences of scale involving time and space to even find an argument there, such as it is.

I hang in there just because of the people who want to do something.  The thought of them leaving because of these folks is distasteful.

Answer 10

You can't discuss science with people who think things they read on a website called "junkscience" are authoritative.  Generally I don't bother being anything but snarky to the skeptics, what's the point?

As far as the Kellstadt article linked to by Eric are concerned, here's a paragraph from the discussion of that paper:

"It should be noted that the information effects reported in this article are limited to self-reported information.  Objective measures of informedness about global warming and climate change might produce different effects. And indeed there is some scholarly evidence to suggest that this might be the case. In their models of mass assessments of the risks of genetically modified foods, Durant and Legge(47) found that

self-reported informedness and objective measures of informedness were almost entirely uncorrelated, and that their effects worked in opposite directions."

The implication being that most people who say they are well-informed might be getting their "information" from junkscience.com or other skeptic outlets, and if tested objectively on what is correct in terms of the science these people would score very low.  Also, this points out how effective disinformation such as on junkscience is, especially when the disinformation is telling people what they want to hear.  If you had run a similar survey about smoking, cancer and environmental tobacco smoke in 1970, the results would have been nearly identical, for exactly the same reasons (i.e., people had been reading tobacco company propaganda and thought they understood the science when in fact they were simply believing something that felt good).  It also points out that a lot of people suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, and simply aren't competent to assess scientific debate.

Answer 11

It's important to keep in mind that these scientifically uninformed doubters around here already lost the scientific battle (10 - 20 years ago) and are in the process of loosing the public opinion one too.

5 years ago, most of the public had never heard about global warming. Now people all around the world are turning their lights off for an hour in a symbolic gesture that it's an issue of concern.

Last night alone, Al Gore was interviewed on 60 minutes (CBS).  Then on Extreme Makeover (ABC) they installed solar panels on a house, gave away a Hybrid SUV, and made there were numerous other references (and commercials) green focused.  Being concerned about global warming and the environment is now mainstream America.  Even all the presidential candidates are on board.

A recent Yale poll on the issue found this:

"Nearly half of Americans now believe that global warming is either already having dangerous impacts on people around the world or will in the next 10 years—a 20-percentage-point increase since 2004. These results indicate a sea change in public opinion."

Answer 12

Better to answer, to better reflect the balance of people who understand that we have a problem:

"Seven out of ten Americans surveyed believe that global warming is probably happening. Seventy-one percent say that global warming is probably happening, 6 percent believe it is probably not happening, and 23 percent are unsure. This includes an 81-to-3 percent margin among Democrats, a 75-to-4 percent margin among independents, and a 56-to-13 percent margin among Republicans."

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/conten...

Answer 13

You gotta hope that by giving them an answer, even one they don't like they will pay attention. Sadly they seem to have very little to say (offering evidence that indeed winter is colder than summer and refering to the south pole and the antarctic as if they are different places) so they are compenstating by saying it loudly and as often as possible.

Keep trying, but don't waiste too much effort, it may not be worth trying to convince some people.

BTW, I do like the link where the girl who was picked as the best responce basically told the asker that he was an idoit and then said she felt dirty being associated with his question.

Answer 14

That is nearly the best question that I have seen by someone in an effort to dodge debate and hide from the truth. It also insults the people that oppose your point of view. Both of these attempts are those of a person that is afraid of the opposition and the possibility that they, them-self, may be wrong. Nice try!

Answer 15

Its better to ignore it, because if you can't provide a true answer to their questions without looking stupid.

Answer 16

Like the one guy mentioned that extreme makeover home edition was installing solar panels on a house the built. So what I have wanted to go solar for a long time and not because I believe in the global warming lies because I don't the evidence just doesn't support it, but I digress. Solar panels helps get you off the grid, and in the long run it is easier on the pocket book. So are hybrid cars at least when it comes to "filling up".  While the panels and cars themselves cost more in the long run they cost less and not because they are saving the world from destruction.  So please don't state that as more people jumping on the awareness band wagon. I know lots of people that think GW is bull yet are all for saving money and are all for getting off the grid. Who wants to put money in someone else's pocket. That is the bottom line. REALLY!!

Answer 17

you hit the nail squarely on the head.

there is an indoctrination going on in school and on tv to convince people that a disaster exists and is rapidly moving toward us.

my friend asked me if i had heard about the ice breaking off of antartica.  i explained this happens routinely and the ice is actually smaller than some of the pieces that broke off when the fear mongers were telling us about global cooling (in the 80's)

NOAA just released a vast documentation over the last 7 years showing no temperature change of the oceans.

how can you argue with a brain washed person?

i think of these people like horses in a fire,  you lead them out of the barn, and they run back in  consumed with panic.

it is the same way with these people, confronted with the truth, they have not been taught to think for themselves or study and seek out the truth.  

rapidly, this population is becoming chattle, and fodder for every liar out there

Answer 18

You assume the posting and answering these questions in Yahoo Answers! make a difference. Have you considered this is not the proper platform for the debate, discussion, and education?

Answer 19

This is really simple.  Many people read the questions, even though they don't answer them.  One piece of evidence is seen by checking the people who rate the question Interesting.  Often they didn't post an answer.