Why do you think global warming deniers block those who disagree with them?

Question

Personally I'm currently blocked by 2 global warming deniers so I can't answer their questions. One is supposedly the top answerer in global warming, yet I guess can't deal with opposing views.

How can global warming deniers complain about the UN not allowing skeptics to speak at the Bali climate conference, and yet block answerers who disagree with them on Y!A?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApJrc1P97bomnd1_wdg9te4Fxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071214080626AAl0X0I

What are these deniers afraid of which motivates them to block opposing views?

I'm not going to name names - the first denier who blocked me, I don't really care. I don't care about the second, but I think it's ironic that he's often praised by global warming deniers for having become the top answerer in global warming, yet he no longer allows the opposition to view or answer his questions.

His answers have a similar tone to mine, yet I have not blocked him. Just goes to show who's got something to hide.

Good point about linlyons regarding credibility. He cheats the system to win questions that come to a vote, gives himself many thumbs-up and the opposition many thumbs-down, awards himself pretend degrees, and now blocks the opposition view from his questions.

When someone has to resort to such desperate measures to attain some perception of credibility, it says a lot about his credibility in reality.

Mikira - your answer is appreciated (though that's not the reason the people in question blocked me). I'd be happy to answer your next question if I have something constructive to say about it. If I don't have anything useful to add, I try not to answer a question.

J S - I'm guessing you hit the nail on the head.

Actually the first guy who blocked me keeps accusing me of having his questions/answers deleted (even though I rarely report him, and no, it's not Origin), so I'm guessing that's why he blocked me. Unjustified paranoia.

Kirk - care to provide any evidence to substantiate your claim that anyone is trying to impose a global warming-based tax on the USA?

The only proposition made in the US has been a carbon cap and trade system, not a tax. You are incorrect.

gcnp - while the person in question undeniably asks stupid questions, I think it's important that every information be answered correctly. If an asker blocks everyone who answers correctly, that creates a problem.

Sorry, that should say "every question be answered correctly, with the correct information".

Answer 1

Well, it's sure not Harvard. It's more like a schoolyard.

And we all know bullies can dish it out - but not take it.

Added:
The environmental crowd has been putting up with this nonsense for 45 years. Many of the more intelligent ones in the US gave up a long time ago. Unless you are a martyr, you begin to realize there is absolutely nothing you can do to get through to people. The forces of the status quo are just too strong.

The science of ecology has shown, for a long time now, that man's interference in the natural world is going to end poorly; and likely in catastrophic fashion. We are now beginning to see some irrefutable consequences.

I have come back out of the woodwork after 30 years to give this another shot and try to get through, to get the word out. Again. I'm one of the less intelligent ones that keeps butting my head against the wall.

The majority of the anti-environmental crowd are not conscientious skeptics. They are reactionary passive/aggressive resistant types who will obfuscate and haggle and equivocate and delay and deny to the end of time. Not because they have a better argument.

Because to fix these problems means the end of everything they believe in. Freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want. Freedom to believe that God is in control of everything and man has no influence on the world.

Well guess what; throughout human history man was constrained by his local environment. Try to go outside the boundaries and you and your clan die. That simple. Fossil fuels ended that constraint. Except the cost for our freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want is environmental apocalypse.

They will go to any length, any hypocrisy, any denial necessary to avoid that truth.

You, my friend, are by no means disrespectful in any way like your opposition is. Believe me, I speak from experience.

You speak the truth to the deniers and that is like:

water to the wicked witch, daylight to a vampire, holy water to... you get the idea.

Is this hyperbole? Yeah, in a manner of speaking. But why else would you get blocked?

Answer 2

Maybe you've done something to upset them - I don't know.

I can't see the point of blocking someone because they have a different point of view to another person, seems very narrow minded. A while back and there was a mass blocking with a certain person seemingly blocking everyone that he/she disagreed with. Fair enough if someone is being abusive, causing harassment etc then get them blocked.

In defence of Mr Jello I would like to say that I was blocked by him for several weeks but for perhaps a month now I have been unblocked and have answered a few of his questions. As for as I know I'm not blocked by anyone at the moment which is quite a surprise.

What I find interesting is that so many skeptics have private profiles, I get the impression that they're trying to hide something.

Answer 3

I never report any body
ever

If they block me first, I return the favor.

As my general Rule I childishly block people who do not bother to vote for their own questions ,especially after i have given long answers .

Disinterest after inquiry is a far greater sin than ignorance.

I know this may be unfair ,they could be ill or out of town ,

but i don`t care and I do not forgive ,That is a Christian concept

Vengeance is mine

guess i should not have said that .
,i promptly had a long best answer on Global Warming killed as a violation .I have frequently been a target and i still am.


(voted by the questioner ,so the customer was happy ,some troll obviously was not)

it said a best answer is a violation
can you beat that

So who in this line up is the murderer,there are about 6 suspects

Answer 4

The such a lot ironic factor approximately it's that the main concept within the 70s was once that the melting of the icecaps -- which had already been located then -- might adjust the local weather in one of these approach that it might cause a brand new ice age. That concept hasn't been absolutely deserted, and actually it was once the foundation for the tale line of the film, "The Day After Tomorrow". Apparently the deniers certainly not troubled to learn any of the articles they push aside so speedily.

Answer 5

Probably for the same reason that Global Warming believing scientists block Global Warming skeptic scientists...

...People who have made up their minds don't like to hear opposing opinions...

Edit:

There are some people who do have open minds to the possibility of a different point of view - and a different possible outcome. For example: I'm not too sold on the whole "Global Warming" craze - HOWEVER - I'm also a person who believes in doing what we can to protect the environment because it's the right thing to do...

By saying "protect" the environment, I'm NOT saying that the environment needs to be locked away and people kept out. I'm saying that we need to have "responsible use" of our natural resources, coupled with responsible practices for mining/logging/harvesting/etc. those natural resources...

Answer 6

They don't as a general rule. Jello and I have extreme disagreements, but there's civility on both sides, which allows us to discuss things, sometimes even usefully. See his question on altruism.

You are pretty aggressive, and I can see some people just being exasperated with you.

To be frank, this post has a certain similarity to one by a "skeptic" claiming that he's being abused because of his skepticism, and that this reflects a general rule. It doesn't, in either case.

As a general rule skeptics are not being muzzled, nor are those who support the mainstream. Generally the worst that happens is that "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" are tied to philosophical agreement rather than quality.

In any event, Yahoo answers is not Harvard. Don't expect people to play nice, although I believe respect is often reciprocated. And don't expect Yahoo to police anything but extreme behavior.

EDIT2 - Origin L - If you want to know why your stuff is being removed, look at the fourth word of your second sentence. And no, I'm not reporting you, and haven't.

EDIT - Thanks, everyone.

Answer 7

I whole heartedly agree with Bob. After all, everyone's entitled to their own views even though they are wrong. Just joking, no offense meant. I sincerely hope that we can keep this argument and or future arguments in a more civil manner without provoking each other's views.
Peace and Merry X'mas to all. Dr. Jello included.

Answer 8

First of all......yahoo answers is a game.....grow up and get over it.
There is a big difference between a game, and world wide body that is trying to impose a huge tax on the U.S. (global warming conference in Bali).
And there may be other reasons that they are blocking you(my bet)
The U.N. conference in Bali is a money grab, those attending this conference don't give a damn about the environment, all they care about is getting into the checkbooks of the "productive nations" Read the transcripts and ye shall learn.

Answer 9

I agree with Bob, You and I get along when we treat each other with respect. And the reason I usually stay away from answering your questions is due to feelings of being goaded and put down, because I don't believe the way you do with what's going on with our climate.

You could learn something from Bob and Trevor about treating people with respect and courtesy. Most of us on here, are here to learn something. And to tell you the truth I was a bit sad that you didn't answer a few of my recent questions. Maybe you'll answer the next one. I'm still conceptualizing it, but hopefully if I formulate it correctly it will get people to think of interesting solutions to deal with the impact of our warming climate.

Edit: I never claimed Dr. Jello was credible. I haven't seen any answers from him that doesn't seem a bit sarcastic. I'm just telling you how I feel, but I'd never block anyone.

Edit: I'm glad you appreciate my answer. I look forward to your answer to my next question, which I'm hoping to get a lot of good answers. Even if it makes it harder to pick a best answer.

Edit: gcnp58 - I don't answer questions like that either, but I do like to read them, since they give me a good laugh while I'm at work.

Answer 10

Why on earth do you care? Most of the questions that get asked by the skeptics are pointless, very seldom do they pose one with any "meat" to it. I mean, do you have any interest at all in answering something like this:

Would the Destruction of Man be the Greatest Gift We Could Give the Planet?

Let alone read any of the responses?

Don't look a gift horse in the ... um ... mouth. Yeah, that's it. Mouth.

http://www.thanksmuch.com/download.cfm?category=christmas&song=holly-jolly-christmas.mp3


Dana: People asking silly questions and providing nothing but gratuitous charichatures as answers will marginalize themselves over time. (Inhofe is a great example of this. Nobody takes him seriously anymore and he's left supporting people like that Israeli guy (Shaviv?, I forget), who hasn't published a paper in over 10 years but still gets trumpeted by Inhofe and others as "one of Israel's top young astrophysicists.") It is better, in my opinion, to save energy and answer questions that matter. If people take dumb questions seriously, then they aren't going to believe a rational response to it anyway. Similarly, if people are willing to believe frivolous answers, no amount of persuasion will make them think otherwise.

Not every lie has to be challenged.