pegminer

I answered a question this morning that was something like

"What does X do?"

My answer was of the form:

"It's easier to explain what X does not do..."

Then I listed the things that X does not do. My answer was deleted for "Misuse of the question and answer format" when it clearly answered the question (or at least its negation.

So I asked the negation of the question myself "Why does X not do" and gave the same answer. Again it was deleted for the same reason.

Each time I gave a real answer to the question and didn't insult any YA members, so why was it deleted?

Here is what he said:

"A vapor generally is a gas that above boiling point"

Kind of makes you afraid to be in a humid climate, doesn't it?

I ask this question because I saw a recent one /question/index?qid=20150...

and I started looking at the list of scientists and noticed:

Reid Bryson -- dead

Frederick Seitz -- dead

Robert Jastrow -- dead

Since many of the names I didn't even recognize, I wonder how many of them are dead too. That's not to say that weren't some living scientists on the list, too

Steven Koonin is on there--he used to be chief scientist for BP, and Antonino Zichichi, who is rumored to be head of the Mafia in Erice, Sicily.

Because that's the way it appears in a current question. If you look at the link associated with this question:

/question/index?qid=20150...

You'll see that it refers to just TWO scientists (apparently they didn't quote the third)

It makes me wonder how there's any water vapor in the atmosphere at all, and I think it violates one or two of the laws of thermodynamics.

/question/index?qid=20150...

In a recent question one of the most prolific deniers claimed that peer review was a very low standard and was just "like minded people agreeing with each other", yet today he is using peer reviewed research as evidence in another one of his endless questions.

How can he have it both ways? If he thinks it's such a low standard, why tout it in another question?

The gelatinous global warming denier is once again trotting out the David Viner quote about snow and intentionally misinterpreting it. Is this considered "sarcasm" when it's already been done a few dozen times, or has it passed that point and just become one more tired lie from the denial crowd?

I have had the categories changed on dozens of questions today, some more than 30 times. Isn't that abuse and how do you report it?

I have had dozens of my questions changed to the category "Abuse and Spam" from Global Warming. Is there a way to report this sort of abuse? One question has had it's category changed perhaps 30 times today.

I'm fairly certain that the user goes by the name "Dr Jello".

I'm especially looking for answers from those that don't think there is any connection between global warming and hurricanes.

We hear deniers complain about peer review in science, claiming that it's a rigged system where one friends approve each other's work. Since it is doubtful that any of them have actually been through peer review, do you think they believe this because of their own basic dishonesty?

As a fictional example if two deniers, Gelatin M.D. and Chaparral, ask questions and give each other undeserved "best" answers, isn't that the same kind of dishonesty they're accusing the scientists of? Aren't they just projecting?

Since the person that asked the original variation of this question censors so many people from answering it, I thought I'd give people a chance.

Note that this time there is no reference to percentage by volume, or ppMv, he just says that we have increased carbon by 0.012%. Isn't it closer to 40%

A strange question, I know, but Sagebrush recently claimed that when Al Gore spoke of the Arctic sea ice, that was the same as talking about snow. Sagebrush said

"There is no chemical difference between 'ice' and 'snow'"