Is this forum almost entirely comprised of skeptics now?

Question

I think that most reasonable people have come to the conclusion that AGW is true and they have no interest continuing a never ending "debate" about it. Almost every question here is accusing people of being stupid for believing in AGW or someone trying to write a book report which pretends that this is a 50/50 debate and wants both sides equally represented.

As the debate about GW in the real world ends, is that just making this forum an even stronger magnet for people who don't want to believe in it to come and shout at everyone else about how crazy they are?

Answer 1

People wanted to believe that the earth was flat too.  They could not be convinced otherwise, it is what it is.  Those of us who know GW is a fact have moved on to what to do about it.

Answer 2

One could also say. "That the alarmist/extremist attitude has probably done more to promote skepticism then the science has"...Not a great reflection on science or those trying to support a fundamental cause.

ed: see answer above to relate.

Answer 3

So, only people who believe global warming is man made are reasonable?  I feel most people who post questions like this are irrational and insulting.

Answer 4

for some reason there are a lot of morons on here, "skeptics" if you shall call them... claiming everyone is stupid for believing, and then under sources they always type "life"... as if thats supposed to be proving they're smart or someshlt lmao

Answer 5

It's called debate. Free speech.

Answer 6

Nah I think it's about 50/50 here.  I classify the various groups thusly:

Group 1 is comprised of global warming deniers.  They *need* global warming not to be caused by humans, generally for political reasons.  They're a small group, but a vocal one because they're in the minority.  They feel the need to convince others that they're right in a desperate attempt to increase their numbers and obtain some sway in our democratic system.

Group 2 is comprised of your average joe who acceps that humans are causing global warming, is fine with taking some action to reduce our emissions, but isn't terribly informed on the subject and doesn't feel that strongly about it.  Because he's in the majority and neither has a strong opinion nor an expertise to share, he's quiet on the subject.

Group 3 is comprised of people who feel strongly about the need to address global warming and/or are well-informed on the subject.  They use YA in order to inform people who are genuinely curious about the subject.  After all, we can't have the only answers being deniers providing misinformation.

Groups 1 and 3 are roughly the same size, thus this forum is roughly 50/50.  Group 2 is the important one in a democracy, because they comprise the majority, and they agree with Group 3 on this issue even though they don't feel as strongly about it.

Answer 7

Ha ha ha.....you have opened a can of worms with this one. I think if you have a look through the answers and compare the thumbs up/down ratio we can easily notice that it seems the split is in favor of the deniers.

Personally I am very concerned about AGW and make an effort to educate and/or inform people around me. I used to be really interested in posting in this forum but quickly became disillusioned at the level of ignorance and the lengths people would go to deny what is without any doubt a fact.

I am under the impression that many of the deniers in Y/A have multiple accounts so that they can post the same garbage repeatedly, though what they hope to achieve by this is a mystery.

I seldom post here any longer though I do occasionally 'drop by' to see how things are going. I am glad that the 'regulars' continue to post.

I now tend to bring the subject up in conversation with human beings as opposed to avatars, and I think that your last paragraph would  hit the nail on the head if you replaced the question mark with an exclamation mark.

Answer 8

its happening, but are humans causing it? h**l no

Answer 9

Most people who read up on the issue become more and more skeptical the more they read.

I wonder why that is?

Seriously - I came to this debate with a relatively open mind.   My view was it's unproven, and the burden of proof has to be with those seeking to limit otherwise free activity, but if proof is provided I'll examine it and keep an open mind.

Two years later nobody's provided proof, only misleading statements and sometimes just outright lies.

Answer 10

They aren't denialists.  They're trolls.  They think they're being funny by trying to confuse everyone.

Answer 11

No.  It is just a PIA to keep answering the same questions with facts over and over, but the skeptics don't accept the facts, so what is the use?  They just keep posting myths and propaganda and try to convince people that everything scientific is "biased" when in reality they are extremist pushing biased propaganda.  Visit their websites and evaluate them.  It will be self-evident.  

Action to reduce AGW is moving ahead in the US and that is what counts.  When we deadwood in November, maybe something will be able to take shape after January.  I'm going to do my part by voting.

Do not use yahoo answers for book reports and such.  Do not use anything with *.com or *.org as reliable information.   Read them and see if they have any creditable links, and go to the links.  You really need to use peer-review publications for reports and such.  College libraries will  have these and search engines that help find information by key words (eq global warming, climate change, global cooling, little ice age, etc).  

High schools are tougher.  It is hard to access information and not all books are reviewed by experts for accuracy.  Many times, the author just pays to have it published. Some are review, but not all.  Some of the more prestigious magazines (time, newsweek for example) have a science section that has a science editor that gets information looked at, but this is pretty rare.  I think a lot of high schools get Science and Nature, and maybe American Scientist.  These cover a very broad range of topics and are reviewed.  

Good websites to get information from that can be credibility sited is the US EPA, National Academy of Sciences, NASA, USGS, NOAA, NIH (CDC), IPCC.  The IPCC is the mother of sites for global warming and most information cited by other organizations starts there.  You can easily find 100s of credible references from these sources, and all are credible - reviewed and thought to be correct given what is known.  

With websites, try to figure out who actually is publishing them.  Do they exist just to spread myths and obstruct facts or so they deal with science?  Can you even identify the purpose of the site and the mission?  Do they ask for money to support a view?

Example of a scientific website is at  http://www.nas.edu/

Example of garbage that could not make it through the peer-review process and was put up as denialist propaganda.

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

Look at the difference in the quality of the information and think about the differences.

Answer 12

Yes, there's a very vocal group of skeptics ("crackpots" would be a better word) that keep spouting illogical pseudoscientific nonsense that's supposed to refute global warming. It would be much more useful if this forum were broken into two different fora: one for people that want to have an intelligent discussion of the implications of global warming, and another for the crackpots. I wouldn't mind them if they brought forth any intelligent arguments, but they don't.  How many times do we have to hear things like

"The climate changed in the past before man was around, so that proves we're not causing climate change now."

or

"Al Gore flies around in his own 747 and drives a souped up hummer, so that proves global warming is a hoax"

or

"It's colder on Mars than it is on Earth, but almost all of Mars' atmosphere is CO2, so obviously there's no greenhouse effect."

"32,000 scientists [some of them even alive] have signed a petition against global warming, so how can anybody think it is real?"

Geez, what a bunch of lame arguments.  If we could have a real forum for global warming, we could discuss interesting things like:

Will hurricanes get stronger as the Earth warms?

Is the global conveyor belt shutting down, and if it does, what does that mean for climate?

Can ecosystems shift fast enough to keep up with climate change?

How quickly will the oceans rise?

THAT'S the sort of global warming discussion I'd like to see.

EDIT: One answerer said

"Now, my dear, I would like to issue out a challenge- go and read the grounds for skepticism- and I mean really read it, try to understand, and maybe then you'll come to hold greater respect for those with different viewpoints."

Which I'd like to answer--I do go out and read the grounds for skepticism, and the more I do, the less respect I have for those with those viewpoints.  As I mentioned above, most of the arguments (at least the ones given here) are completely baseless and illogical.

Answer 13

YEEESSSS, this site is dominated by people who believe GWB is a GOD.  Oh , and also who believe that Saddam attacked us on 9/11

Answer 14

Let us be thankful for the fools; but for them the rest of us could not succeed.

Mark Twain

Answer 15

Duh, how do you think Dr Jello became a "Top Contributor"?

Answer 16

Firstly, true scientific debate is never over because science is the pursuit of the truth, no matter how long it takes. You, my dear boy, must come to understand this principle. Secondly, I find your manner to be very offensive in the way that you label all believers of AGW as reasonable people just because they hold the same view as you and the media. There are many reasons why skeptics hold their views, and the science behind this is more than reasonable. What isn't reasonable is the way many are inclined to believe AGW just because the media is spouting it and unwilling to at least respect other viewpoints (like you). Thirdly, you are overgeneralizing, since many of the questions here are people asking questions on how global warming works, the effects, and there are also many accusing skeptics of being in the wrong. Fourthly, your use of the word "stupid" certainly does not show sophistication. Fifthly, last time I checked, all sides have the right to be represented- that is what I call freedom of speech. Especially for such a contentious issue as global warming, there should definitely be equal representation to further the debate. These "book reports", which I assume is your term for long answers, are also used by proponents of AGW. You might as well be fair in your accusations. Sixthly, the debate in the real world is not ending, there are skeptics who speak out. Seventhly, you make it sound as if skeptics are in denial unsupported by evidence, which is a false statement. Although there are people who do "shout at everyone else about how crazy they are" there are also those who provide calm scientific explanations. You'll see the same pattern of answers on the believer side as well.

Now, my dear, I would like to issue out a challenge- go and read the grounds for skepticism- and I mean really read it, try to understand, and maybe then you'll come to hold greater respect for those with different viewpoints.

I hope that won't be too hard for you.

Answer 17

why would you think that the forum is almost entirely composed of skeptics now? you think that most "reasonable people" have come to the conclusion that  AGW is true. See the subtle rhetoric there? in order to be skeptical one must now be unreasonable? Maybe the increased number of skeptics is due to the fact that Global warming is a religion(and a poor one at that) not a science.The debate about Global warming isn't ending, rather it is just starting as people see that they are being manipulated by self contradictory "facts". I neither want, nor don't want to believe in global warming, what I do wish to do is to look at the data and assertions logically and rationally, but that is getting increasingly difficult as the global warming simply MUST be believed as gospel or the skeptic is viewed as narrow minded/out of touch.

Answer 18

ok my beleifs are that yes GW is real but not our faults. if people opened their eyes and looked stuff up all that c**p they do shows that over the lifetime of our earth it gets really fing hot then goes into an ice age... its happened about 7 to 9 times so far it just so happens this time we are helping it alone faster so no it not our fault b/c it happened w/o us itll happen again and theres nothign we can do about it people just waste time qand money trying to stop it. it cant be stopped i mean its nature have a man try and fight a bear try and move the earth... its impossible. history repeats itself. learn it live it deal with it.

(if anyone has a problem with what i said ill talk to you but if your just going to yell and feed me that bs "we can stop it" then your wasteing my time)

Answer 19

Its real, the only people who argue it doesnt are the un educated or close minded.

Answer 20

Hey, fella, you haven't noticed me? :-)

It is true that there's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

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

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Answer 21

keep in mind,  an empty drum makes the most noise.

and lord knows, some of them have the emptiest drums around.