If you score them as 3 pts for specific, 2 for primarily and 1 for somewhat, then the skeptics score 24 points while the realists score 9 points.
A search of Answers for questions that reference Al Gore and Global Warming reveal that 74% of such questions come from skeptics, 12% from realists and 14% from neutrals. (based on first 50 search results)
Your observations would indeed appear to be accurate and it’s also something I’ve been aware of for quite some time.
I’m guessing that there will be some skeptics that are completely unaware of this, some may even claim that it’s the other way around. Once again, the evidence shows otherwise.
One thing I’m sure you’ll have noticed is that the skeptics very rarely ask science based questions and almost never answer then (apart from some irrelevant response such as “GW is a hoax”).
What gives is that a substantial number of the skeptics have very little comprehension of global warming (even if they think they do) and so avoid the science at all costs. Look at how often their answers are nothing but quotes from other people, references or links to the work of others, copypaste from other websites or simply rehashing what has been said so many times before – in other words, nothing of their own, just a compete reliance on others for their “information”.
The same is of course true to some extent for the realists. Again, a quick flick through past Q’s and A’s reveals however that it’s much more likely to be a skeptics who uses these techniques to ask or answer questions.
As always I ask you, when are you & the others that foster AGW going to develop an economically viable solution? I don't want to live in a 3rd World environment. Most that buy into AGW also don't wish to live in a 3rd World life style. The masses aren't Zealots. They think with their wallets.
I've offered a way to change the economics, but the LEFT doesn't appear to be interested. I would even say the environmentalist would be the major ones against it, since it would take a desert land area the size of Los Angeles & create a New Los Angeles to subsidize the economic disaster called Green Energy.
There is a pattern, If we do what liberals claim will solve any problem the world would be better and even if it doesn't solve the problem because you "feel" it's "good" the outcome is irrelevant. When it's obvious the plan fails the explaination is that we simply need to do more of the same stupid idea until the result you expect come to pass. Not attacking you individually but the Borg collective that is at the heart of liberalism.
You are imagining the "trend". Note Hey Dook's answer. In his attempt to agree with you, he entirely dismisses your point. He shows both himself and Gary F are doing exactly what you claim skeptics are doing.
I always laugh when you call alarmists "realists" because they hate reality so much. Whenever another of your failed predictions comes to pass you always seem to think that the prediction was right, just that Mother Nature failed to cooperate.
I haven't really noticed that skeptics focus on individuals myself but it may be. There are a few high profile alarmist climatologists, Hansen, Mann and Jones whom I consider frauds so I have brought them up from time to time. Al Gore is a major player in spreading climate alarmism and I believe he's about as worried about man made global warming as am so I think it's fair to bring up his hypocrisy as well.
I find most of the Ad Hominem attacks and avoidance of answering questions directly come from alarmists. If I link to a study in Nature through Watts the only thing most alarmists will say is "Well, you can't trust anything that Anthony Watts says" and then completely ignore the points brought up in the study.
I guess the only pattern I see are "realists" ignoring reality.
Few realists ask science questions, because they never question the science, their questions are more about policies and attitudes.
There are two types of denialists; ones who are scientifically illiterate and do know what to believe without making it about who they trust. And there are others who actually know that the science actually says that global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
They can't make their case with science, so instead they use ad homs against honest scientists and Al Gore, often calling them frauds.
I think it is some combination of
(1) Not realizing that most science, and climate science in particular, is not the result a single breakthrough discovery by a single individual (such as say the development of the smallpox virus) but is an accumulation of knowledge from many diverse studies, from many places, over many years.
AND
(2) Thinking or pretending that some specific, albeit often distorted or exaggerated, small flaw or error of or by one person or small group of people suffices to invalidate years of consistent and solid scientific discovery. This can, in turn, be the result of muddy thinking, as in the susceptibility to irrational and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, or a result of conscious deliberate deception.
Or, as GaryF might put it, simplistically but not inaccurately, it could be because they are stupid or liars or both.
By the way, I would say that even more common -than questions about individual scientists or non-scientists- are the daily or weekly stream of denier blog trickeries, crudely reshaped as fake questions.
Of course, same as cherry picking
I find the exact opposite. Skeptics are much more likely to be dismissed (or have their motives questioned) based solely on who they are or how they are allegedly funded. Similarly, I find skeptics more often address the argument rather than the credentials of those who are presenting it.
I've noticed a pattern, and I'd like to know 1. if other people see it, or if I'm seeing patterns that aren't there, and 2. if it is a real pattern, why it's happening.
The vast majority of questions from realists are about the science, the politics, and other general subjects. They may mention some individual, or be asking about what some group or category of people believe, but most of their questions seem to be very much about the subject matter, *not* the personalities involved. The only regular exceptions seem to also be fairly subject-oriented--along the lines of "this poster here keeps making this basic mistake about the science, why?", which could reasonably be considered efforts to counteract said poster's misconceptions or lies.
But a lot of questions from skeptics and denialists--maybe not a majority, but a lot more than you see from realists--seem to be about individuals. Things Gore said, whether or not a given scientist is trustworthy, and so on. Even a lot of their subject-oriented posts seem to hinge on a single study or report, often including questions about the reliability of the source.
So, what gives?
