I haven't left the section, I am still trying to figure out the liberal mind and how it works. Their inability to comprehend problems and never failing failed ideas on how to solve a problem are fascinating. I find it fascinating that someone can come to such wrong conclusions and continue on with the most ridiculously stupid ideas to solve their made up problems. It's extremely frustrating and the fact that you can't teach a liberal good problem solving skills is surely worth studying to see if it's something genetic we might be able to fix.
The problem with the science and this section is the fallacy that motives don't influence people and the opinion by liberals that their motives are superior. You cannot debate with a liberal on facts because they don't view the facts, they view there version of the facts based on how those facts make them feel; back them into a logical corner you immediately become ignorant, stupid, and racist. It doesn't matter what the topic is, it's as if your speaking a different language when you counter their argument with a fact and they counter with a completely unrelated issue.
I would find it boring if when asked a serious question you didn't get some idiot liberal response about how it's warming because of the ozone hole and just pollution in general and we need to simply reduce CO2 to fix the bad weather we've been having. There is a terrifying humor knowing that our society has gotten to the point where such an incompetent can not only survive but thrive in the world they think is being run so terribly.
I don't need your $100 dollars today, I'll take the $500 dollars in a year.
Lol no no debate no fun wats the point if all were correct and agreeing there will be no polarity plus there would be no global warming issue so no discussion. Discussions arguments happen when there is a issue to be debated.
If all started being respectable yahoo would not have been here to police us!
Boring would be prevalent if all ends positive and well plus improvement means positive so no debate so boring lol
As for $100 looks logical at the moment coz in one year who knows where I'd be dead or alive or even in the condition of using the $100 I earned so yeah being a present person will utilize $100 and make $500 on it by myself with the means at hand and resources helping me earn the same!!!
Personally, I would not take a single penny without reason nor without earning it!!! So you'd have to have a great reason to give me $100 / $500 in the first place :D
BTW good to see you ask questions it has been a long time that u disappeared from the answers site!
You cannot get rid of the polarity without completely overhauling the US political system. The polarity is deliberate. It is a tactic of the Denier political war against science. In fact, it is their only tactic. If lying, convincing idiots to lie for you, and being too stupid to know that you are lying (and too lazy to care if you are lying) were outlawed, there would only be a handful of Deniers left – in the entire world.
Despite their zeal and time invested in attacking AGW, Deniers still do not have a clue where the good targets are. If I or any of the other educated kids here began asking really meaningful scientific questions, it would be like giving an assault weapon to a 6-year old because Deniers would learn to parrot things that could be mistaken for real intelligence.
The way things are now, the questions that Deniers ask and the points that they raise are so transparently stupid that they are as much of a threat to climate science as Monaco’s 300-man army is to the United States. Give them a nuke however, and suddenly they are Kim Jong Un.
Nice reply to Dook. See, you can't even help yourself. gcnp vindicated in his attitude. I only came here to try to understand the denier mind. And to mock the most offensive propositions. Yours being one of them - :"Oh, I just innocently come here to try to add to the discourse". Baloney.
Well, the way I look at it is this ... if you REALLY want to know about global warming and climatology then the best place to do that is in the library. If you really want to understand the science and the potential impact on society then the best way of doing that is by downloading books/papers, or looking at websites from reputable organisations involved in climate science, scientific organisations, the UN, the World Health Organisation, etc.
If you're trying to learn about global warming quickly by asking a community of random, anonymous strangers, most of whom have no training, education, or experience in the field of climatology, then I'm afraid you'll probably get what you deserved.
Yes, I would come here even if it wasn't so polarized. I would love to see more questions about science where people are really interested in getting answers. I always try to answer legitimate science questions where I feel I can make a contribution. It would absolutely be an improvement. I think if people want to advocate their political beliefs they can do it in other YA sections.
I'll take that $500 in a year--we can work out the details offline.
I'd take the $500 in a year.
only polite questions and respectful answers relating to climate.
see it as improvement: Global Warming science.
Without disagreement, which you refer to as polarity, there would be no science.
I have quite being nice to those who chose to label those who disagree with their cause as deniers or stooges of big oil or whatever. These imbeciles are wrecking havoc on America as they have already dragged Europe into the garbage heap. John compares those who are skeptical of his idiocy with holocaust deniers and then pretends to be above it all.
I'll take the $100 today, thank you very much. If I believed it was a real choice, I would go with the $500.
I don't think it would be a global warming section if there wasn't some polarity but I would appreciate a reduction in bad and misinterpreted information which exists mostly on the side of the deniers.
$500 in one year for a $100 investment would be a 400% per annum investment. I would take the $500 in one year in a heart beat so long as your credit rating was good.
Would you come back to the GW section if there was no polarity, but only polite questions and respectful answers relating to climate science or policies?
Would you see it as improvement?
Would you see it as more boring?
Bonus:
If I told you I could give you $100 today or $500 in one year, which would you chose?
I would see it as a vast improvement as, I am sure, most others would in here. The problem is that when one person starts being hateful or making hateful posts others follow. I would like to see the majority of the posts in here surrounding the science not the he said/she said sort of discussion as occurs in here all too often. I originally came here to learn and discuss with like minded individuals about the concerns facing our planet with relation to a warming atmosphere and learn about the possible effects. As I learned I gained new perspectives in the reality of anthropogenic climate change and came to accept the data and the science put out by scientists. I don't use the old "It's snowing here therefor global warming is false" or "It's hot here therefor global warming is true" techniques. I agree, however, that a warmer atmosphere will 'load the dice' for certain weather anamolies as that warming effects natural variation, such as the ENSO, that makes those weather phenomenons more extreme. I just wish a lot of people would bring in scientific discussion instead of the old conspiracy theory talk that many in here support.
I would prefer a more polite forum focused on the science and realistic policy solutions. There is very little science content at present.
I would take $100 today and use it to pay part of the patent cost for a solution to an AGW related problem. A provisional patent costs about $2500 to file and can earn a royalty of 5% on revenue derived from the patent for 20 years. There is always a minimum annual royalty clause which would be worth more than $400.
No it is much more fun the way it is, except there are some younger people who ask questions the ones gcnp58 doesn't like and these should be explained properly giving both sides of the argument,
I will take the $100 please, a bird in the hand is worth two in a bush.
I've just looked in after being gone for six months, and if we could just keep to FACTS and root out the BS I'd come back.
And I'd take the $500 in a year.
I come to this section to quell all lies about AGW or ACC. Although I do consider some of the greenie answers entertaining, I could do without most of them. Scientifically, the greenies traditionally have no value, as they are pretty much just name callers, thumb down artists, source put downers, sock puppet users and con artists.
Usually they get upset with the truth and so do viscous acts. What some are attempting to do to Ian is typical.
I would take the $100. With our present administration you will be out of money in a year, if you are not broke by that time the taxes will probably be raised so much all I'll get will be $50 if I'm lucky.
I am not very impressed by "polite" lies about science. There are thousands of those here and it is not clear whether there would be any change on that score in your scenario.
Unless your $100 and $500 are denominated in Syrian currency, the $500 in a year would be by far the better deal (if your plans a year from now are reliable).
Yes, I can think of nothing more appealing that an entire section devoted to questions like:
"I need three arguments for and against global warming."
"My dad says global warming is a lie, is he wrong?"
"It
repeated over and over and over and answered politely. As it is, this is what we get anyway, but if idiots want to ask the same dumb questions over and over and over, they shouldn't expect polite replies over and over and over.
Mostly, climate skeptics like the attention, good or bad, it's why they are climate skeptics. If I use them as intellectual punching bags, it's because they like it and because it is so easy since they know so little (take the heat flux questions lately, one skeptic here repeatedly claimed he didn't know anything, and that nobody else would know anything either, but that didn't prevent him from chiming in that it all must be wrong). If the climate skeptics didn't like being smacked around, they would try to educate themselves and elevate their game intellectually. But as for being polite, I don't believe in giving out gold stars just for putting your name on the answer sheet, you have to answer the questions correctly.
