Bonus, should I just select a best answer to my questions based on the number of thumbs down?
Maybe people should learn to answer in a dignified manner. Insulting answers always get a thumbs down no matter what information is brought forth. How many of your answers would have been vaporized if 2 people declared them "demeaning" and/or "insulting"?
--------------
We don't like each other's answers because the science seems to be coming from different sources and have different interpretations. You assume that your information is correct based on your own interpretation of it. Skeptics spend more time refuting inaccurate interpretations of the science. One simple example is the forcing effect of atmospheric CO2 as it pertains to a 40% increase. There's nothing conclusive as to how much of an effect that it has on temperature, but "alarmist science" is stating (as if it has the absolute authority to do so) that it is causing extreme climate changes and then plasters their findings all over environmentally biased news sources and are mostly unchallenged. In 50 years of living I have experienced only minor variations (simple "natural climate variability" IMO) which have balanced out over time. So, your science can try and explain it off as some kind of apocalyptic change in the climate, but most people are not experiencing it and therefore are tossing the "alarmist's" interpretation to the side. The "environmentally biased" media can print what they want to, but getting it accurate isn't what is happening.
Your rhetoric travels down the information channels towards being an "environmentally biased" alarmist, so anything you say or print is tossed aside automatically!
One can only speculate and at this juncture it may be pretty even up, but forced to choose which side of the argument is more likely to give a thumbs down simply based on the name of the respondent, I would have to give the edge to the skeptics side of the argument. Although I cannot say with certainty, in my own experience it seems that on occasion when I have answered a question in a way that to me seems quite balanced I have been rather surprised at the responses of some of the skeptics and the number of thumbs down I get, while the realists tend to address the issue and provide useful information even if they strongly disagree with my answer. And, I have to say I personally haven't been insulted or demeaned by any of the realists here in the course of a disagreement over my opinions, which is not the case with the skeptics. This isn't to say that the realists are NOT giving me thumbs down if something I comment on seems to lend support to skepticism, but I don't get into the hoax theories, etc. or screw around with no content questions and answers much. And more often than not, the realists point of view seems to me more reflective of the state of the research rather than the media interpretation of it. I'm not saying the realists don't have very strong opinions about climate change, because they do in most cases. However, that seems more rooted in the science than an ideological rationale or questionable media reporting/blogging. It seems to me that the ideologically/politically oriented participants here are angrier about the issue than the scientifically oriented folks who express more frustration with the perpetuation of clearly inaccurate interpretations of what science is telling us.
I dunno...maybe I get thumbs down for just being too long-winded. There's always that...
Bottom line is it is meaningless in any case, at least in this category where so many people are so emotional. I do note that if anyone feels like it is an issue, when I clicked on 'edit' to add a final comment, one of the options appears to be make your answer anonymous. I hadn't noticed that before but maybe some people would want to try that and see if that makes a difference.
Simply based on a name ? Everyone has an opinion ( just like all people have *** holes ) An opinion does NOT make you correct or wrong. It simply is your opinion. As for the thumbs up or down, that really doesn't matter. Some will like an answer and some won't. The phrasing of a question is just as good as a Thumbs up to some. If you say something like " I really like this " and you are a top contributor, chances are that you will get a thumbs up. That doesn't make it right.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
Cyclops 1, Zippi62 3, BB 3
Linlyons 6, ChemFlunky 4, pegminer 6
Deniers 7 thumbs down. Warmers 16 thumbs down
Question answered. I guarantee that it's not that we think that deniers answers are any better than our answers are. We're just less vindictive. I could look at many such posts. The results are pretty much all the same. What's more telling is thumbs down on answers that really have nothing to do with global warming.
I have seen a lot of thoughtful explanations of the science of AGW get "thumbs down".
So I conclude that some deniers can't handle rational answers.
With a person who uses the term "denier" I figure has they're mind made up already. No need to use facts here. Truth is a three edged sword. Theres your side my side and the truth. We all see things from our own view point and some of the supporter of man made global warming have not always been completely honest. Truth is a hard task master. I only give thumbs down to people who insult on both sides.
Many of you greenies have so stated that you just give me thumbs down and never read what I have answered. In fact Y!A has caught some of you giving me multiple thumbs down. To the Dorkster and people of the same intelligence, the multiple times means that those people have sock puppets which is apparently only legal if you are a greenie. (To Y!A's credit, they have removed many of them when I pointed them out.)
As far as me giving TDs. I only have done so sparingly and do so only when the answer is so utterly outrageous that the answerer is either mentally insufficient or that, that person is knowingly lying.
The thumbs issue has cooled since YA, in a rare smart move, eliminated the ability to hide answers by thumbing them down.
I would give a thumbs up to dropping the thumbs altogether.
Barring that, it would be an improvement if thumbs uppers and downers were listed by name.
A more modest improvement (beta-tested for a while) would be to have only thumbs up, no thumbs down.
I WOULD support a thumbs feature on questions, but there ought to be a limit on how many you can do per day or week (maybe 5 or 10 per week).
I think you'll find people who do that on both sides, but I suspect you'll find more of that from the "skeptics", because I think they're more likely to make this all about personality instead of facts...
I never give thumbs down and I never report people; and, I also do not think liars deserve respect or dignified answers.
Zippi62 –
>>Skeptics spend more time refuting inaccurate interpretations of the science.<<
Deniers certainly spend time trying; however, they have the problem of trying to attack a science when they are too stupid to know what science is - and scientifically illiterate Deniers who call themselves skeptics are, by definition, liars.
AGW deniers, or folks concerned about global warming?
Bonus, should I just select a best answer to my questions based on the number of thumbs down?
I think warmista's as they take it so personal, they take any disagreement as an insult on their science (umm religion) that is also why they become so abusive.
