It's hard for me to understand why so many "skeptics" (to use their term), make such an effort to remain ignorant.
Yes, I think they do, in two different respects; first of all, the opportunity presented is for the more scientifically literate here to present information in ways that laymen can more easily understand, without the distortions of media sensationalism, politicians, etc. etc. I think it would be remiss not to include Pegminer in that group, and there are certainly others whose contributions should not be overlooked. The second opportunity is perhaps even more significant-at least it would be in the eyes of the proponents of ACC, AGW, or whatever you choose to call it. And that is the marked contrast in the quality of the questions and answers generally provided by those proponents compared to those offered by the self-proclaimed skeptics. There are a couple of exceptions in my opinion, and those two are Ottawa Mike and Kano. Both are frequently branded as 'deniers,' but I find their questions and comments interesting and not what I would describe as denial. I don't usually name names in my responses, but both are very aggressive without being pugnacious, and they generate a LOT of information coming available that is not otherwise easily found.
I do think there is some name calling going on just from the frustration of trying to deal with the obviously uninformed questions, comments and repeated dissemination of mis and dis information by certain participants here, so I would qualify the example you give in additional details with that caveat.
Oddly enough it was people like the ill informed that got me closer to an understanding of what was actually going on. In response to various questions and answers here I needed to study up to form a reply. To do this I decided to stick purely to university sites, educational institutions, government sites, military sites, science journals, and so on. I learn to make quite a lot of use of http://scholar.google.ca
It does get rather tiring, though, having the same seasonal questions asked year on year such as "If it's snowing here this year how can AGW be true?" or something similar does get tiring. Then they are known to come back with something the poster never even stated such as "Well during heat waves they say AGW is true!". And having the same things stated over and over again by exactly the same people does get frustrating.
I do think that the ignorant are providing those interested in the subject something good as those who are interested in it will actually look it up from reputable sources and they will actually look at the science rather than conspiracy propaganda.
Good question.
Even six months ago, I would have answered: "Not much."
Still now, I am inclined to believer that the Honest and Informed here on this site learn more by ignoring the Deniers (who are not merely uninformed but DELIBERATELY and PRO-ACTIVELY uninformed) than by responding to their posts. "Don't feed the trolls." etc.
But, I have become increasingly aware lately of this general pattern:
1) Most denier posts are, if not direct copy-pastes, at least ultimately based in large part on standardized anti-science talking points from blogs such as Wattsup.
2) At the core of most of the anti-science arguments on Wattsup et al, are stock myths compiled probably most effectively and completely in the list of 174 "Most used climate myths" here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
3) Most arguments on the skepticalscience list above derive from disinformation talking points concocted or fleshed out in the 1990s by fossil fuel industry astroturfs such as Marshall Institute
4) We are unlikely to make effective progress in taking action against global warming (as opposed to simply suffering its negative effects and trying to adapt after the facts as our economy is negatively impacted) until this chain of public deception [ (1)-(3) above] is a) understood, b) comprehensively exposed and c) taught about in schools.
5) Dissecting the anti-science of the deniers here does help non-deniers with a) above, in the sense of better understanding what the anti-science is based on.
P.S. Many of the 174 myths are derived from what were actually genuine scientifically skeptical ideas 30+ years ago. As the science progresses, fewer and fewer of them make any sense at all, unless some there is some kind of grand time-space conspiracy on the level of that propounded on YA, Global Warming recently, and outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke AND the link under "source" below.
Consider it comic relief and a study in psychology. Sadly not much has changed since Cassandra.
Why worry about village idiots like sagebrush and maxx?
"the best informed answers have been given (Trevor, Hey Dook, Jeff)" Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! You are ready for the rubber room.
Trevor was caught lying three times one one question.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
The Dork has to block anybody with intelligence because they tear him up with truth and he virtually just name call on his answers (You call that 'best informed'?)
Jeff M is out most of the time hunting for some missing heat or desperately trying to prove the consensus back in the 70s weren't hawking an Imminent Ice Age.
If you are intimating that these three outstanding examples are the epitome of intellect then you would be enthralled at the chattering of monkeys.
You consider Hey Dook well informed?
Wow!
Sarcasm is supposed to be subtle.
I have noticed that some of the best informed answers have been given (Trevor, Hey Dook, Jeff) to the endless barrage of uninformed babble. Where I was once insulted by the obvious distortions in questions I now look forward to the work of the informed. Is this the hidden message here?
