Why have several global warming deniers blocked me?

Question

There are at least 3 global warming deniers who have blocked me so that I cannot view or answer their questions.

I'm not asking this question to complain (and I'm not going to name names), but I'm curious as to why they've done this. Personally I think there are several people who contribute little if anything to the Yahoo Answers Environment section (and even detract from it by spreading misinformation), but I don't block them because I think everyone should be entitled to express his opinion. Apparently several global warming deniers don't feel this way.

Is it because they want to be shielded from opposing viewpoints? From scientific evidence, which I usually present in my answers? Do they somehow find my answers too abrasive? Are they afraid I'm going to report their questions as abuse (which I only do if they are blaitantly violating community guidelines)?

What's the dealio?

Answer 1

You're in the minority.  It's usually the global warming supporters who block those who disagree with them so they can't view or answer their questions (I'm currently blocked by over 20 global warming supporters).  On both sides of the aisle it's the same problem -- those who refuse to entertain the viewpoints of others are so convinced of their own superiority and their own "correctness" that they won't allow anyone to even suggest that they may be wrong...

Answer 2

That's easy:

I block anyone who suggests socialism as a solution to any problem.

Answer 3

some people cant handle others opinions..

Answer 4

Well it could be your blatant lack of objectivity.

You will not even entertain the possibility that there is reputable data out there that is not in support of your theory yet you expect everyone else to accept everything you present as the only qualified information that exists.

Your Holier than thou presentation is a bit annoying as well.

You call yourself a scientist yet you lack objectivity. Regardless of your self expressed credentials you are your own worst enemy when it comes to presenting yourself as credible. You site the same studies over and over and dismiss anything to the contrary as fantasy, out dated or authored by a quack. Your arrogance gets in the way of your argument much of the time. You have shown that your mind is closed to anything but that which supports your position. I doubt you have completely read anything that has been provided you that argues against your position.

And as others have said... You are rude. Also you have been known to e-mail those with whom you disagree and get even ruder to down right nasty.

As I have said all along, I do not disagree that GW exists because it does. What I have a problem with is the arrogance of your position that we who have occupied such a small percentage of this planet for such a short time can have such a disproportionate affect on its natural cycle. Especially when the major contribution to the equation that you hold mankind responsible for has only been present for barely a century, less than a nanosecond in the grand scheme of things.

The way our earth’s climate works is not an exact science because no one completely understands all the causes and effects that go into it. Anyone who says they do is blowing smoke.

I have not and will not block you because there are times when I enjoy your arguments. At times your logic is quite amusing for someone who claims to be a scientist.

Answer 5

They do not want to hear the reality on global warming becasue they are afaird of the truth. They feel that If they make up lies and block people who tell the truth that there answers will make it appear that global warming is not a threat. The just do not want to accept the truth that the world is indeed warming?

Answer 6

Because it's like this, if a Christain wants an answer to a Christain question, they don't want Muslims to answer with: Change to Muslim or die.

Or if your on Google Images, and you type "dog in shoe", you don't want a naked woman in a gigantic shoe, you want a Dog in a shoe, so you turn SafeSearch On, get it?

Answer 7

I think the fact that AGW alarmists claim to have an "open mind" and everyone is entitled to their opinion but then follow it up with there is no debate about AGW. That's not much of an open mind.

Answer 8

I would label you as somewhere between "jeweler's rouge" and "emery cloth" in the scale of online abrasiveness.  That's a good thing.  Never underestimate the power of either in finishing hard surfaces.  

The problem is that you can deal with the technical issues.  It's easier to discount someone who provides correct technical information if they throw in a few really blatant gratuitous insults.  It's harder to deal with you, because you provide detailed responses that can't be safely ignored simply because they are also in part completely obnoxious.  So your answers nearly always require a response, which takes effort, and most skeptics don't really want to put in the effort.  As Dr. Jello points out, it's easier to just block you.  

In short, they don't want to pick an intellectual fight they will lose, because you will fight.  Other more balanced responders don't get blocked because they won't fight, and long cookie-cutter answers are easy to ignore because everyone has read them before.  Obstreperous voices can be replied to with insults, negating any intellectual content.  

Get meaner or be less correct and you'll be golden.  Hard times require tough choices.  :-)

Answer 9

Some people post because they are paid to get a certain viewpoint across, not because they want answers. In fact, for the global warming deniers, facts only interfere with the propaganda.

Answer 10

This is so funny. Great question and the answers are a crack up. Jello said you are rude....and insulting... LOL... And the other people that are not happy with you are so stuck in their own confused little world that I dont think they are aware of any type of reality that extends further than their field of view....

  LMFAO....

*edit* i just read icemans answer..... still laughing... cant stop.... ;=D

Answer 11

Many people block others who disagree with them because they can't bear the ordeal of having to read opposing viewpoints.  They figure that if they block those who disagree, then when they ask questions they will get the answers they want.

Answer 12

Because they are sick of you saying it's real.

Answer 13

I didn't know this was possible, but it is a great feature.

If I had to guess, your tendency to snow people instead of providing a concise explanation using the fewest number of words, might be an issue.

For example, if you were to provide an explanation of accuracy, precision, and uncertainty in the world of numbers, and showed how it figures into AGW, we would all be thrilled.

Maybe an explanation of the "butterfly effect" and why climate modeling is immune to this issue.  A few years ago this was all the rage to explain the sensitivity of chaotic non-linear systems.  A butterfly flapping its tiny wings could influence weather over the mid Atlantic.

Then again, your screen name includes "Master of Science" that is annoying to those of us that really have been awarded a Masters degree in a science.

What may seem cut-and-dried on the high school level, tends to be more nebulous as one climbs the academic food chain.  A key part of science is analysis of variance, what occurs naturally without any pertubation.  A lack of any side effects in a drug study is a sure sign it was faked.  Criminal suspects are questioned many times over a period of time.  A lack of variance in their answer means they are sticking to a story.

Your need to refute a badly sited ground weather station, suggests you have never encountered real data sets with outliers, missing data values, etc.  If all ground stations returned perfect data ... that in itself would be really suspicious.

And finally, there is the quote:  

“Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.” -- Thomas Henry Huxley

There are about a dozen assumptions in AGW from CO2 emissions to the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it, that all have to be true.  Some of them have A LOT of uncertainty.  Lets pick one, the urban heat island "adjustments".  Depending on how much "adjustment" is made in what direction, you could conclude the earth was warming, staying the same, or actually cooling.  How about another, like water vapor.  It is too hard to model on climate simulations ... so it is just ignored, doesn't count.

You ever wonder how the Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, and Joe McCarthy came to be?  It seemed so quaint and puzzling to read about them in school.  How could people be so incredibly mislead and naive?  Yet Heidi Cullen wants to decertify meterologists who don't confess and embrace AGW, and that doesn't raise some alarm bells?

If anyone lost their job because of AGW, and went to trial like the Scopes Monkey Trial, the attorneys would tear AGW apart.

Answer 14

Dana - I have the same thing happening to me. The screen name "evans_michael_ya" is blocking me.

They are afraid of our answers. They don't want people to see the facts. If this is not the case, I challenge them to open the debate to us. If their arguments are bullet-proof they have nothing to worry about, but since they blocked us in the first place they know that not to be the case.

EDIT - Jello, if we are so rude, there are methods to stop it. You can request Y/A delete our responses, but be careful you don't take advantage of the system. It can bite back...

Answer 15

I had a  really innocuous question  "reported."   A friend of mine who had answered it and asked in an e-mail why it had been deleted, offered to repost the question almost word for word, and it was reported a second time, with a completely different reason given.  After that,  if people were really virulently hostile, I started blocking them, in case they were the random "reporter."

To answer your question, it's possible that they've had questions reported, and since you seem to consistently disagree with them, they may believe you have reported them frivolously, and blocked you just in case.  I periodically check on the ones I have blocked, just to see if I've misjudged them.  I did unblock one member, but the others are still blocked.

(Edited to take out my question.  I've been supplied with an answer through a different channel, and do not wish to appear to engage in a reportable "chat"!)

Answer 16

You provide links to scientific papers, and you encourage discussion on that basis.  Apparently that's frustrating or threatening to some people.

If I were threatened by science, I might consider blocking you too.  I'd probably use the excuse that you calling attention to the use of propaganda sites instead of scientific ones was rude, since I might be personally offended by your calling attention to my tactics.

Answer 17

For the same reason that I put telemarketers on a do not call list; they say the same thing over and over, with no effect.

Answer 18

Maybe they don't share your extraordinarily high opinion of yourself.

just sayin......

BTW I will not be blocking you as that is eliminating another viewpoint, wether or not I disagree.

Answer 19

Dana,

Though you and I may differ in our AGW views/opinions, I would never consider 'blocking' you.  That is because I do appreciate your commitment to the issue and your efforts to support that commitment with something more than emotion.

Answer 20

You're just rude.  You don't add to a debate, you tend to just insult those who don't agree with you.

Frankly it's just tiring and I don't want to deal with it anymore.

[Edit] Point proven - You asked, I answered, You insult.

Answer 21

I am always amazed that warmers have no problem in debating non scientists who are not familiar with the subject, but yet do not want to debate scientists who are familiar with the subject.  Tim Ball (that pseudo climatologist or con artist as you claim) has issued an open challenge to any one any place to debate the subject.  As of yet there are no takers.

"Is it because they want to be shielded from opposing viewpoints? From scientific evidence, which  (he) usually present(s) in (their) answers?"

As the saying goes, "why do you not pick on somebody your own size?"