Has anyone else noticed an apparent decline in the standard of questions and answers in this section.?

Question

The global warming section of Answers has always been somewhat contentious and it’s inevitable that there will be some poor quality questions and answers, this is par for the course.

Recently, and more so in the past week or so, it appears there has been a marked decline in the quality of comments emanating from certain quarters. To this end there have been any number of truly bizarre and irrational statements, some of which beggar belief and are beyond all forms of justification.

I’m not talking about genuine errors or mistakes but the deliberate obfuscation and conscious deceit. I’m not going to cite specific examples but you only need to read through a few random questions and answers to see my case in point.

Answer 1

yes, with some important exceptions. There is still a steady stream of questions that actually ask for information, including very detailed questions about spectroscopy.



But there are more questions, some from new individuals or at any rate new avatars, that I don't even waste my time answering, and more answers that I wouldn't dignify with a thumbs down. I wonder if this represents a deliberate shift in policy, or just the rise of teapotheadedness.



UPDATE: Forgive me for bragging, but Rio has blocked me! Clearly, he thinks I am lowering the level of debate.

Answer 2

I have not noticed any decline in the questions and answers. I first stumbled into this category a couple of years ago (I spent my time the science categories of weather, geology and physics) because I was appalled at some of the misinformation that was being spread. I was truly shocked that people could imagine some vast conspiracy of scientists and world government--especially after 8 years of the Bush administration trying to suppress belief in global warming. I didn't find the quality high then and I still don't.



I found that certain people will block you if you state that they lie (like Jello), plagiarize (Richie), or are just plain wrong (Rio, James E). For many people there is no hope of separating the science from the politics. To be honest I have very little interest in the politics of AGW mitigation, and it's mostly the science of weather and climate that interest me.



I wonder if the apparent decline that you have noticed is more your own internal decline in tolerance for foolishness? After a while it gets hard to tolerate fools.

Answer 3

Nothing much has changed in the 4 years I've been here. The same naive, ignorant and asinine Q&A's pop up over and over. As noted, the occasional interesting question and exchange occurs. There are three differences however. Early on there were moving and informative soliloquies from committed environmentalists and there was celebrity involvement. Apparently, those groups realized there was no committed audience here, or the fad wore off. Until recently (about a year or so ago) there were some (possibly) real skeptics who at times asked challenging questions (when not veering off on political tangents). They either finally got the message or gave up arguing. I'll be less than charitable and suggest it's the latter. I had email exchanges with a few and when their points were rebutted one by one, completely and unequivocally, they just stopped replying. The only contrarians left here are the incorrigibly ignorant and incorrigibly reactionary. Just like in real life.

Answer 4

via fact very frequently, human beings ask questions that are SO open-ended, which you could't meaningfully answer them devoid of better rationalization -- to that end, the elect for a question. In different situations, it quite is extremely perplexing to respond to a question right this moment contained in the time and area presented in this format. each sometimes, the ideal device to explain a philosophical difficulty is to ask a question that could motivate a undeniable way of thinking. that's frequently lots greater useful, specifically circumstances, than any attempt at an answer, incredibly for greater open-ended questions. different cases, the question is so ludicrous, or such an glaring troll, that the questioner does not deserve the honour of an straightforward answer.

Answer 5

The decline in the last week or so has been startling. I've been very encouraged by what seemed to be an improving dialogue here between the skeptics and proponents for the last few months and have commented on it several times, but all of a sudden it's like the bottom dropped out of the skeptical arguments with very few exceptions-I won't name names because I might leave some people out but I think they are apparent to the regular participants here. Skepticism is good, even when it is aggressive and sometimes caustic, but recent questions and comments by some seem to have elevated the now-cliched descriptive of 'Denier' to as yet unseen levels.



I really don't get it, it's almost like some people would argue the chemical composition of water if their political opposites say it is H2O. Oh wait...Penn and Teller already did that. I dunno...recently it's been like watching a train wreck.

Answer 6

I see a major decline, not only in the quality of some answerers answers, but of how many questions that are even being asked in this section. You can now see questions sit on the first page for days. I'm not sure of the significance of this observation, because just like the climate there could be a bunch of factors that are causing this decline in the "Global Warming" section on "Yahoo Answers".

Answer 7

I'm sure it's just a natural cycle of quality and will pick back up again soon enough. There are forces at work here way beyond our ability to understand, let alone influence. Before we do anything about this drastic decline in answer quality, I think we ought to wait a little bit longer and see if it sets itself right naturally, since it is clearly a natural cycle. We are just coming out of a little enlightenment and so there is going to be a decline in answers associated with that, and besides we know that back in the middle ages the answers on YA were much worse than any we see today.

Answer 8

There is a decline in this category because most reasonable people see how the issue has been politicized. There isn't enough real science to back up the claims made by the alarmists that support this nonsense. There is however more than ample evidence that those supporting this issue have been using every trick they can to see to it that alternate views are suppressed and not given proper review. When you back one of the alarmists into a corner they invariably say that the only scientists that support any other view are in the pocket of "evil oil companies", yet fail to look at where the money comes from supporting their agenda.



Miles is a perfect example of an alarmist. He makes his emotionally based choice then ignores anyone with a contrary opinion. Explain to me how that is the "scientific" approach.

Answer 9

I've certainly noticed it. And I've given specific examples if anyone wants them:

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100730112053AAflgEG



And I'll admit that question was an example of a decline in the standards of my own questions. It was basically a "I can't believe how insane deniers are becoming" question, whereas generally speaking I prefer to keep my questions scientific in nature. But like you with this question, I felt the need to ask about the absurdity of certain individuals on this site (though you did so more diplomatically).



My policy is also to block those who constantly make useless arguments like "global warming is a scam" and "climate scientists are frauds". I've blocked quite a few people at this point, a number of then in the past few weeks. In fact the "AGW is a scam" argument appears to be the most popular denier argument these days. Also gaining popularity seems to be calling AGW realists "idiots" and "dumb" for making scientifically correct statements.



You and I have both noted the decline in denialist arguments many times. Every time I think they can't get any worse, they manage to decline further. I'm not sure how they can top the current combination of conspiracy theories, lies, and personal insults, but I'm sure they'll find a way.

Answer 10

There have been some notable exceptions to the decline recently as noted by Paul B. LRG asked a very good question about phytoplankton and biological feed backs.



The denial choir are useful fools. They are buying time both for the fossil economy and for those, such as Al Gore, who are investing in the new green economy to lay claim to a larger share of the future with relatively little competition.

Answer 11

Hey Trevor –



Your answer to Dana’s question is spot on.



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100730112053AAflgEG



Educated and informed deniers know they have exhausted their supply of objections to AGW that any reasonable person might consider legitimate. Many of those behind the denier movement who, as you note “fed misinformation” to the political pawns have retreated or withdrawn from the campaign while they can still retain some credibility in their public and/or political lives.



They are smart enough to not cross the line where the lies are so blatant and outrageous that they are indefensible. I think the same can be said of some deniers here who have either disappeared completely or who respond far less frequently than they have previously.



That leaves us with (1) those that are so hopelessly uninformed that they never have known – or will ever know – fact from fiction and (2) zealots blinded by ideology who are fighting some Holy Political War.



There may be a third group of people possessed by the spirit of James E.

Answer 12

Some months back I stopped following the open questions,and just paid attention to people like yourself,Dana,Paul,Gary,Rainbow,glad to hear from Robbergirl again.So in being selective I feel I'm learning from this forum.

By the way I did quite well on your little quiz last week and do entertain all sides( I've also tagged Ottawa,BB and the like.)

Thanks for the answers and the links.

Answer 13

Yes, and isn't it a travesty, we cann't hide the decline.

Answer 14

Definitely! I asked a similar question not too long ago: "Has this site gone from mediocre to stupid?" and then provided several recent examples. The question received about 15 stars before it was pulled for being "insulting".

Answer 15

No the staffers from the global warming propaganda committee have been here for a long time.

Just look at the top contributor list and what they say and it will be obvious.

Answer 16

Maybe it's because there has been a major decline in the interest in GW.

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/editorials/7402-ny-times-warmer-alarmist-friedman-admits-general-public-doesnt-care-about-gw

Face it. Al Gore bored everybody to death on the subject.

Or it could be that the AGW crowd keeps losing the arguments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7908604/Desperate-days-for-the-warmists.html

Answer 17

In some of them yes.



Probably because there's a lot less interest in the subject lately for pretty good reasons.