Is there an arsenal of agw proponents just sifting through peoples answers, giving them the thumbs down?

Question

I see so many good arguements, with scientific sources, and factual evidence that is against agw, that instantly get loaded up with thumbs down.... is this just because the proponents are sour, and stop reading the arguements as soon as they figure out what their stance is?

Answer 1

It could be only one or two professional (paid by Greenpeace or Sierra Club) under several names.  When they keep accusing "Deniers" of being 'paid agents' - it makes me think of Clinton's tactic of accusing the innocent of what he was guilty of. Of course the leftists media backed him up and brainwash people with false leftists beliefs.

Answer 2

an excerpt from a post by Jack H

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )

UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science."

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that "solar changes significantly alter climate." (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 - 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period "0.3C warmer than 20th century" (LINK)

A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )

With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the "silent majority" of scientists."

So there you have it

sloegin says

Sacred Mother Earth

Is a no brainer

Recycle humans

Couldn't be plainer

On this gentle Earth

Humans are a cancer

Get rid of them

Is the only answer

Answer 3

Yes. They're called "the population at large".

I've seen arguments against AGW, but rarely a good one, and even more rarely peer-reviewed science that supports it. So please feel free to link. If you can.

Answer 4

Yeah.  I find my answers thumbed down practically as if they are waiting in the bushes to pounce on them.  I had to take the opportunity of this thread and thumbs down some of the alarmists which I don't normally do.  Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Answer 5

No, we read it and when we see that it is actually bad arguments, with pseudo-scientific sources, and skewed, cherry picked or just made up evidence, then we give it a thumbs down.  Actually, I don't even bother anymore.  

Edit:

Ok, just this once more.

Answer 6

I agree...  "AGW" has almost become a religion among its proponents.  They've bought the AGW propaganda and don't want to take off their blinders.  And putting "thumbs downs" is a major outlet for them to express themselves.

There's a lot at stake politically and financially for the proponents of the AGW theory.  

The propaganda about "AGW" has been hot (NPI) talking point for liberal politicians. Although, I'm ashamed to say, that some conservatives have taken the position that it's "politically correct" to say that they are going to do something about "AGW".  Even GW Bush has jumped on the AGW band wagon..  

And financially..  If the Universities and Government funded Laboratories admitted that the data that supposedly supports a "AGW" conclusion is fatally flawed...   They would lose hundreds of millions of dollars in grants.. And Al Gore would have to recall his book, and return his Nobel Peace Prize....

The data that dispels the myth of AGW is coming from scientists that have no political or financial ax to grind.  Climate experts such as Dr. Robert Carter have done their research pretty much on their own nickel...

Answer 7

Wow, what an ironic question.

Since I'm sure this link won't work

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Type in "what the heck does AGW stand for" in the 'Search for questions' box to see what I'm talking about.

I got 2 thumbs-down within 2 minutes for saying that AGW means "Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming."

By the way, nice job making a nebulous claim without giving a single example of what you're talking about.  That seems to be the usual denier tactic.  You probably think Inhofe's blog is "scientific sources, and factual evidence."