Question:

What prompts you to answer questions on GCC? Do you want to impose your ideology or provide information?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

Do you have a personal or political agenda? Or is your overriding mission to inform?

Are you learning a lot in the process? Does most of what you learn support your established views, or has your view shifted as you've gotten further involved with the topic?

 Tags:

   Report
Answer The Question I've Same Question Too

16 ANSWERS

Sort By: Date  |  Rating

  1. Skeptics do not want to impose anything on anyone.    Hate Exxon all you want, they don't show up at your house with a gun and force you to buy gasoline.    They just want to be allowed to offer it for sale, and I just want to be allowed to buy it and use it.

    Sure, Ken's a libertarian on most other issues - most collectivists are libertarians on issues they don't care about.    If you don't care about how people live their social lives, you'll be "for freedom" in those areas; if you don't care how people spend their money, you'll be "for freedom" in those areas - what matters is whether you let people do what they want when it's something you don't like.

    The more time I spend here and the more I read up on the issue, the more I recognize that the holes really are there, they're not filled, and the level of certainty didn't increase over the last five years - they just decided they've proven what they can prove on the existence of warming, without ever proving causation, so they're going to declare victory and hope enough people buy it.

    Even if ultimately it turns out that AGW is correct, they've done a lot of harm - the precedent of putting the agenda first and looking for facts to support it and burying those that don't is dangerous.    The precedent of science-by-agenda - of billions of dollars of funding provided specifically to prove one case on one issue is dangerous.    The drowning out of anyone who disagrees is dangerous.    The alarmism is dangerous.

    It's dangerous because those precedents can set the stage for politicization of science for more devious ends.

    It's also dangerous if AGW turns out to be false or dramatically overstated, because it will damage the credibility of anyone who promotes environmental concerns.

    Do I believe that some genuine scientists have legitimate issues, yes, but the trumpet is being blown by people with a political agenda that long pre-dates the AGW movement.    AGW is also a pretext, the latest excuse for people who have always harbored a desire to limit "overproduction," "overconsumption" and "overpopulation" and who have been proven wrong time and time again as a matter of economics and sociology, and who found a new venue in environmental concerns.    UCS, Greenpeace, PIRG, Sierra Club.......    

    When those groups' hyperbole and misinformation take the form of "Noble Lies" - generate concern for environmental issues - the scientists don't stand up and disassociate themselves from the radicals.    In the long run however, when you lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas.   In the long run, people will ignore any and all environmental issues because they feel they've been lied to this time and times before.  

    When a legitimate crisis happens, nobody will listen to the warnings because they've been lied to before, countless times.

    The environmental movement has a serious "boy who cried wolf" problem.


  2. Very good question Amy, especially as I am becoming somewhat disillusioned with this forum.

    My first drive was to inform, educate, illuminate.

    I had also hoped to learn - both from others and, when realising I didn't know something, being prompted to do research in areas I otherwise wouldn't have thought of.

    Certainly, there was (and still is, though to a lesser degree) quite some learning.

    However the informing seemed to me to be minimal. There were (are?) some genuine seekers of knowledge but they are swamped by the inane, the stupid and the witless questions.

    Recently it has become clear that many of the questions are now posted simply to provoke people - there are few genuine questions.

    I find now that I am more and more having to shoot down the ridiculous, to debunk the bad science answers and (dare I say it) selfish morals that abound just in case one of the rare, yet genuine, innocent seekers logs on - I just don't want someone who is looking for information walk away with absolute rubbish in their heads.

  3. Despite the ignorant accusations of some doubters that all people supporting the "AGW is real" position are extreme liberals, communists, n**i's or worse, I am actually closer to the Libertarian viewpoint on many issues than I am to the liberal position (though I address each issue independently of any labeled political position). My entire motivation to answer questions is keeping the truth out there and countering the disinformation being promoted.

    If we acknowledge the problem and start responding now, then I believe only limited government intervention will be necessary.  But if we continue to procrastinate (naively thinking it's a hoax or natural process that will just go away), then I fear excessive government intervention and control in the future will become necessary.

  4. I want to hear others opinions.

    I like to see where the balance stands on both sides of the issues.

    I want to make sure that my stand is counted when others come to look at the answers and count votes.

    THE WHOLE WORLD doesn't believe in AGW, just people who like to say so do.

    My agenda/mission?  

    To let others know that they shouldn't let themselves enslave themselves.

    Am I learning?  I read all that I can.

    I don't see my view shifting any time soon.

  5. Do you have a personal or political agenda? -  No. I don't have a personal or political agenda, since on the political side I'm concerned about how a policy will effect lower and middle class families.

    Or is your overriding mission to inform? - Yes. On both sides of the issue, there are misinformed people that just look at news articles and use that as their basis of the world around them, without looking deeper into where the reporter got the story from.

    Are you learning a lot in the process? - Yes, due to the research I do on the factors that influence the planets overall environment.

    Does most of what you learn support your established views, or has your view shifted as you've gotten further involved with the topic? - My view hasn't shifted, since I still haven't seen a study that convinces me that CO2 is causing the average temperature of our planet to increase. I know that's the premise of the AGW theory and I know they claim they're 90% sure that's what's causing it. But I also read reports that show CO2 lags a temperature increase, due to major things like oceans and deserts releasing CO2 into the atmosphere when they warm up.

  6. The main reason I offer input is to inform people what science is saying. I'm talking mainstream science, like The National Academy of Sciences, but too often their positions on the science of AGW are drowned out by those with a mistrust of these respected scientific organizations. All in an attempt to feed the masses imaginary fear of government involvement, a takeover by liberal "greenies", or greed of mainstream science to receive grant money. Rational people understand they are peddling conspiracy theories, but it does play on people's fear or belief system. And that's what deniers want. This is typical political tactics which were used, and are still used, to great effect by republicans. Throw out a bunch of BS and the other side has to work to refute the BS instead of discussing the real science. That's where we find ourselves today, defending solid theories that are attacked with outdated, refuted science drudged up off the internet, posted by "scientists" that have an adversion to posting information in true, scientific journals. If their science is so sound, they wouldn't have a problem with peer review. Instead, they post it in blogs, or fringe sites for the public who don't understand the science to begin with. It's pretty easy to fool someone who is dependant on energy to begin with...

  7. No agenda but a slight feeling of duty driven by anger to inform compounded by frustration.

    I'm learning how much people in general have become easily manipulated by the media for their governments means.

    Originally i had a feeling that the information being fed to me was overwhelmingly biased and wheeled out every time a hidden agenda was implemented.

    Now i know through a mixture of research and 1st hand experience that GCC formerly of GW is a SCAM

  8. I am hoping that at least one person will read what I write and do their own investigation into the matter. Hopefully, that investigation will lead them to the same conclusion I have come to, it is a hoax.

  9. My main motivation for answering questions here is to inform those who have sincere questions about the subject, and also to correct the vast amounts of misinformation spread by those who, to be blunt, don't understand the science well enough to be answering questions about it.

    I've spent a lot of time studying the science of climate change, and feel that I'm sufficiently informed to answer the questions on the subject which arise here.  I think it's an absolutely critical subject to our society, and everyone needs to be informed about it, so I feel it's worth my time to answer questions about GCC.  Particularly since there are people who actively seek to misinform others about it.

    I have learned a lot in the process.  Particularly from Trevor (I miss Trevor!), but also from some of the more knowledgeable answerers like gcnp.  There have been issues which seem to undermine AGW (such as tropical troposphere and ocean warming), but these issues are always resolved to make AGW an even more robust theory.

  10. I am a PhD scientist and mathematician and am truly concerned with the welfare of the planet and its people.

    I have spent countless days reading a whole lot of scientific information from sources I feel are trustworthy.

    I am no longer worried that we face a major threat from an increasing CO2 concentration. In fact there are some very positive consquences from some more warming that outweigh the negatives. In that case it makes no sense at all to waste trillions of dollars doing something that is likely to either have no effect or actually have a negative effect on climate. The cost of those remedies will hurt poor people much more than the rich.

    If you sincerely want to learn more to make up your own mind, I recommend reading these books:

    Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming

    by Patrick J. Michaels

    This book convincingly demonstrates the remarkable differences between what we commonly read about global warming and what is really happening. Nine chapters describe major problems with computer simulations of future climate that are the basis for wrenching policies being proposed by world leaders. Anyone who reads this book will come away with a new appreciation of the complexity of the climate issue and will question the need for expensive policies that are likely to have little or no detectable effect on the planet's temperature. Published in cooperation with the George C. Marshall Institute.

    A Primer on CO2 and Climate

    by Howard C. Hayden

    Much of the world is poised to take very drastic steps to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the hope that doing so will keep the world from becoming overheated. Indeed, some alarmists call for an 80% reduction in burning of fossil fuels (from which the world gets 85% of its energy) by 2050. But does CO2 really control climate? Perhaps we should look at the facts before committing to CO2 reduction policies that would surely be devastating. Hayden's Primer is based on the notion that the first step in understanding the relationship between CO2 and climate is to gather the facts. Outputs from computer programs are not data.

    About the Author

    Howard Hayden is a Professor Emeritus of Physics from the University of Connecticut. A Colorado native, he entered the University of Denver as an engineering major, but soon discovered that he wasn t temperamentally suited to all that reality. He switched to physics and went on to earn his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. at DU. On receiving his Ph.D., he went to the University of Connecticut where he spent 32 years clasting icons and corrupting young minds. He did accelerator-based atomic physics, including measurements of cross-sections for various processes, measurements of energy loss in atomic collisions and of lifetimes of excited states, beam-foil spectroscopy, and ion implantation.

    Hayden has a long-standing interest in energy, stemming from before the OPEC oil embargoes of the 70s. Presently, he publishes a monthly newsletter, The Energy Advocate, which in August 2007 began its 12th year of publication. He wrote The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won t Run the World. Reviews of the book have varied from praise to venomous hatred.

    Hayden is not employed by any petroleum, coal, natural gas, nuclear-fuel, or any other energy company, or any utility, nor does he receive any compensation from any such facility, either as direct payment or as research support or any other kind of grant. His association with such scurrilous outfits is that he has to pay them for fuels and electricity, quite as if he were a normal human being.

    Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years

    by S. Fred Singer , Dennis T. Avery

    In this New York Times bestseller, authors Singer and Avery present the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Using historic data from two millennia of recorded history combined with natural physical records, the authors argue that the 1,500 year solar-driven cycle that has always controlled the earth's climate remains the driving force in the current warming trend.

    Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor

    by Roy Spencer

    If you listen to the media, you would think that man-made environmental catastrophe was about to engulf the world and imperil civilization. From Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth to nightly jeremiads about CO2 emissions and carbon footprints, we are bombarded around the clock with alarmist reports that disasterous global warming is on the rise and that it's our fault. In Climate Confusion, noted climatologist Roy Spencer shows that fears about global warming are vastly exaggerated and are driven by politics, not truth. He shows that a global superstorm has already arrived-but it is a storm of hype and hysteria. Climate Confusion is a ground-breaking book that combines impeccable scientific authority with great wit and literary panache to expose the hysteria surrounding the myths of global warming and climate change. Spencer shows that the earth is far more resilient than exopessimists pretend and that increasing wealth and technology ingenuity, far from being the enemies of the environment, are the only means we possess to solve environmental problems as they arise.

    From the Author I wrote Climate Confusion for several reasons. In contrast to other works, I wanted it to be an entertaining and easily understood primer on how weather and climate works, showing why manmade global warming is unlikely to be a serious problem for humanity. Furthermore, I wanted to explore the political, philosophical, and religious underpinnings of beliefs in catastrophic global warming, helping the reader to better appreciate why scientific research in this area has become tainted and untrustworthy. Finally, and possibly most importantly, by using basic economic concepts I wanted to counter currently proposed policy "solutions" to global warming that will have devastating effects on the world's poor.

    The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so

    by Lawrence Solomon

    Is The "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming a Myth? Yes, says internationally renowned environmentalist author Lawrence Solomon who highlights the brave scientists--all leaders in their fields-- who dispute the conventional wisdom of climate change alarmists (despite the threat to their careers). Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists who dispute the alarmist view on global warming are corrupt crackpots and "deniers", comparable to neo-n***s who deny the Holocaust.

    Solomon calmly and methodically debunks Gore's outrageous charges, showing in on 'headline' case after another that the scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday scenarios have far more credibility than those who support Gore's theories. These men who expose Gore's claims as absurd hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. Their work is cited and acclaimed throughout the scientific community. No wonder Gore and his allies want to pretend they don't exist.

    This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming--like Al Gore's--to survive.

    Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook. Guess he never met these guys

    Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

    Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

    Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

    Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

    Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

    Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

    Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

    Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

    Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of  

  11. It doesn't bother me that people believe in global warming/climate change. It's the fact that most of these nut-cases want the government to tell me what to do. I'd rather be informed than be told what to do. Some of these energy saving tips have saved me money in the long run. It's not all bad. Just don't force me to do anything and we can be friends.

  12. Amy--

    Unlike the Astronomy and Space Topic- where we answer pointed questions about the universe, this topic only contains opinions for the most part; and or really dumb statements. This is a highly POLITICAL subject with two camps competing for attention.

    The science surrounding GW is very new --- if you are honest you will say something like, " the temperature appears to be rising for a decade or two but now appears to have stabilized or is falling slightly".

    The WHY is still a completely open question --- here I go again! "in my opinion".

    However we do have an energy crisis and the goals of producing more energy with renewables have the same effect regardless of if you believe in GW (human caused) or not. So that's why I post here-- but I also write an energy blog every week that has become very popular on the NeighborsGo website (owned by the Dallas Morning News).

    If you want to see how the above GOALS merge-- read my weekly blog at:

    http://www.neighborsgo.com/blog/boatman2

    additionally I also write an Astronomy blog caled "WhatsUP!" at:

    http://www.neighborsgo.com/boatman1

  13. I don;t answer that many questions on here (mostly answer Astronomy questions) because people do not want to be informed, they want to read answers that support their own ideas or agendas.

    When I do answer - my overriding mission is to inform, but this can be very frustrating.

    That said - I am learning a great deal about people's misconceptions and agendas, which is helpful in constructing effective arguments and getting the message across.

  14. This could be an excellent way to get informed about daily issues, etc., except kids keep on using it to finish their algebra homework and answer 5th grade questions on biology tests.

    I am basically a wanna be know-it-all and enjoy trying to help people and get the best answer.  The reward is great that someone picked yours over all others; the problem is you never know if it is a genuine person asking so you work making a strong answer only for some one liner to get the credit which makes no sense at all.

  15. My main motivation for answering questions here is to inform those who have sincere questions about the subject, and also to correct the vast amounts of misinformation spread by those who, to be blunt, don't understand the science well enough to be answering questions about it.

    I've spent a lot of time studying the science of climate change, and feel that I'm sufficiently informed to answer the questions on the subject which arise here. I think it's an absolutely critical subject to our society, and everyone needs to be informed about it, so I feel it's worth my time to answer questions about GCC. Particularly since there are people who actively seek to misinform others about it.

    I have learned a lot in the process. Particularly from Trevor (I miss Trevor!), but also from some of the more knowledgeable answerers like gcnp. There have been issues which seem to undermine AGW (such as tropical troposphere and ocean warming), but these issues are always resolved to make AGW an even more robust theory.

    Oh sorry I just copied and pasted Dana's answer

    What is my motivation to be here, partially boredom and partially the want to see what other people have to say on the subject

  16. I try to inform, but on this subject, it can be like teaching rocks to talk!
You're reading: What prompts you to answer questions on GCC? Do you want to impose your ideology or provide information?

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 16 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.
Register Now