Why the attitude within answers to genuine questions about global warming?

Question

I posted a series of questions on the weekend with the general aim of better understanding some issues about global warming that I was struggling with.

I am no stranger to science though biology and not climatology is what I would normally study.

I'm amazed by the snide answers I received as if it was treasonous to ever form a question about global warming (especailly since I was not taking sides nor do I have a side now). Why is it a faux pas to ask questions about this issue, especially ones we may not have a good answer to? Science is supposed to be passionless. If you have a conlcusion you must defend it with logical argument not with attitude. There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic about many of the claims the IPCC makes. In fact it is healthy that some people are. Ever hear of the concept of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?

So why the apprehension here, which I've mostly got from one side of the issue? Why the taboo on questioning I've encountered?

Bob: You have indeed answered my questions and I believe I gave you at least one best answer. In any case, this question was not directed towards yourself. You've been most informative.

Answer 1

I've noticed your questions and also observed that they are intelligent questions showing a true desire to learn and find explanations. I admire that and I can also honestly say that I've learned new things from some of the answers to some of your questions. In my opinion this is how Yahoo Answers should work.

Unfortunately, there are just too many on Yahoo Answers who really isn't here to learn things, but they just repeat their opinions like mantras. One can get really frustrated at these people and perhaps this frustration sometime can show off in some answers, hitting someone not deserved to be hit by it. I hope my answer(s) wasn't one of those which could be defined as snide. If it was I didn't intended it to.

Answer 2

I have read emotionally charges answers in many categories here not just with the global warming issue. The emotional answers have one of two basic footings. Either those who choose to get emotional are first considering their own reflection on an issue rather then what is truly being asked. Or tend to look for a debate within the question when there is none.

I read your questions. You were essentially questioning the science behind the issue. How the scientific process was used. Questioning weather or not all factors affecting the issue were considered and how conclusions had been made. Wanting to understand the science used. Doing so can have the appearance that you don't believe the conclusions of the scientists and therefor have taken a side so to speak. Those with differing opinions chose to take up that argument rather then just look at weather or not good science was used.

BTW on the issue itself; I don't understand much of the science myself but I have seen here in So Cal beaches too polluted to swim, soil too polluted to even build on, ground water so polluted with industrial waste that water wells must constantly be monitored. Science may or may not be able to quantify how much man is affecting the global temperature and weather of the planet but continuing to trash our planet can't be a good thing. Keep asking good questions. Good luck in finding answers. :-)

Answer 3

There may be a number of factors here. Yes science should be passionless but this is also a matter of what to do (if anything) and when. It is emotional concern over what might be the ramifications of what we might have to do which is adding fuel to this fiery debate. There are those who think we should revert to the civilisation of 1,000 years ago and revel in the prospect. If I thought government policy might drift in this direction I would be very tempted to think the deniers or the doubters were fulfilling a useful function. My analogy would be that we have a picture here, an important picture, but still somewhat blurred. Asking questions about the blurred sections from a position of scientific interest is very valid but condemning the whole thing as sloppy or invalid when we have a very adequately clear picture of the substantive features as a basis for action is not.

Answer 4

That's just how Y!A works apparently. I just asked if any progress can be made with climate change as long as the issue remains political, and half of the answers were political arguments from one side or the other. There's no such thing as an unbiased question on here. I also think that some of the regulars get tired of stupid trolling questions from people like Mr. Jello and take that out on well-meaning askers.

You should consider yourself lucky though; you can't so much as ask for a recipe in the Vegetarian & Vegan section without at least one reply stating that "God commanded us to eat His creatures" or "You will die without protein."

Answer 5

It's human nature. Politicians rise these controversial issues to get support for their careers. Other do to get just money.
The good thing about it is that most people don't understand science nor want to analyze too much. They only want to know that they're doing the right thing by voting X or sending 3 bucks to Y.
If you start an intelligent debate, they can't refute or support a position because they don't have to knowledge required. It's just faith, like a religion, and you're questioning it.
So they face a crossroad. One path is to accept your logic and understand the truth, though it will make them miserable because they voted the wrong guy and wasted their money. The other is to take a stand for thier position, they're doing the right thing and support the right cause while you're a bad guy trying to ruin the world, the universe and the future for all of us. They live a lie but it makes them feel better about themselves.

It's like Galileo trying to explain that the Earth goes around the Sun. You have to expect people in rage asking for your body in barbecue...

Answer 6

You're right, for truth to win, scientists must retain their integrity, and not exhibit "attitude". The problem is that the "Global Warming Skeptics" engage in the same sort of cherry-picking scientific denial that creationists do. Most argue from a foregone, politically-inspired conclusion that GW does not exist (or that it is not anthropogenic). As a result, their arguments are unaffected by actual scientific results, as reported in refereed scientific publications. The same discredited arguments pop up again and again. Debunking these arguments with actual scientific research only causes them to disappear temporarily.

Furthermore, the skeptic's arguments are laced with ad-hominem attacks on climate scientists and on Al Gore, as well as unsupported and apparently irrational arguments about conspiracies to diminish their freedoms and pocketbooks. Their goal seems to be to annoy the scientists into submission, and thereby prevent any political remedy to the Global Warming problem.

Answer 7

Haven't Trevor and I and others answered your questions with respect and facts?

There are overly emotional people on both sides of the issue here. When a global warming denier (which is not you) asks a "question" which is really a diatribe, they sometimes get a powerful answer. Deservedly.

When someone says "Global warming worshipers hate the truth." with absolutely no facts, should they be treated with respect? How about when the "question" is : "Global warming worshipers, time to start getting excited, hopping for big Hurricanes. I bet you can't wait?"

Answer 8

I read through your questions and saw very few answers that I would consider "snide". Most people simply provided the facts to answer your question and left it at that.

I think you have your answer here anyway though:

"Global warming worshipers hate the truth."
"environazis"

Global warming deniers spread a lot of misinformation, and the rest of us spend most of our time here correcting them. We grow rather weary of having to correct the same misinformation all the time - it gets quite frustrating. One of your last questions was about the IPCC (and a valid question which had many good answers), but many global warming deniers have insulted the IPCC and spread misinformation about it (because there's no other way to combat its findings), and so any question about the IPCC tends to invoke some bad sentiments.

However, as I said, most of the answers to your question simply provided the facts without any snide comments. For the record I think you picked one of the poorer answers to that question as "best answer", by the way.

Answer 9

its a very controversial subject....in the near future we will have the true answer though and hopefully the debate can end....its a very bad thing to be in the middle of when EVERYONE who has an opinion, no matter what it is based on, thinks they are right.....this is a scientific subject being fought by politicians (no i dont mean Al Gore), and when the two mix it only causes hellfire and brimstone....almost literally

Answer 10

environazi's simply do not LIKE when people have a differing opinion even if it is based on facts, such as the temperature on all other planets in the solar system is rising along with martian polar ice caps melting which of course would indicate that perhaps the SUN may have a bit to do with this current cycle of warming. environazi's are extremely stalinistic about ALL of their causes in case you hadn't noticed.