Anybody ever see a spoiled little kid who.......?

Favorite Answer

Yes I'm also blocked,I recently read one of his answers recently which encouraged every believer to block every realist.It's sad that this is level that cultists can drop to,however in the case of hey dook we ain't missing much. His answers are very weak and he has trouble thinking for himself,his main argument seems to be that because some scientists whom he deems to be all wise have stated this to be true then it must be so.The guy cannot think for himself which is very sad,in fact I find that sad in every believer,I bet if a phd told them the moon was made cheese they'd buy it....Show more

I'm an AGWer and he blocked me after one answer:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ah.C4Kg.OmjmPrENnXq3kbnsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20110407171630AAlu8DX
My purpose in initially answering the question was hopefully to raise the level of discourse in pointing out that his questions were counterproductive (not in so many words). That they weren't really questions and that it was probably for the best that they were being deleted. He responds, then blocks me.

It's the exception and not the rule, but you'll find unreasonable "proponents". Paul's Alias was one, Bruce appears to be another, and Hey Dook is one. I wouldn't worry too much about it....Show more

Your question is about to backfire because once again, those pesky little things called facts get in the way. I’ve been participating on Answers on an ad-hoc basis for the past 5 years and overwhelmingly the blocking of other users is done by the skeptics and deniers.

On several occasions there have been questions raised about who has blocked who, and I would estimate that for every one person blocked by those who accept global warming, there are four or five times as many people who are blocked by the skeptics.

It’s interesting that you vehemently claim never to have lied when it’s so very obvious that you have. Take the most recent question that you answered, Ottawa Mike asked “What is happening with Arctic ice?” to which you responded “I am positive that if the sea ice had been still decreasing over the last 4 years that they would point to it and claim it as validation of their hysteria. However, since it is going the wrong way for them they claim it is irrelevant as it represents to short of a time frame and should now be ignored.”

Either that’s a blatant lie or you have completely fabricated your answer. Once again, facts are your undoing. The average sea-ice extent so far this year is 13,185,952km², this is the second lowest level ever recorded, only 2006 saw a lower value (13,064,036). Here’s a graph I created and uploaded just a few hours ago, it’s fully up to date…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorandclaire/5602838322/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Here’s the sea-ice data for the last 8 years http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm and for the last 140 years http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/

Please examine the graphs and datasets as much as you want and then tell me how you arrived at your conclusion. In fact, save yourself some time… you can’t. Instead, given that your statement is completely fallacious, perhaps you would like to explain why you felt the need to invent it.

Another insight into how you think is that you state “And I have yet to hear ANY alarmist address the economic concerns that I raise”. If you haven’t heard them then clearly you’ve only been listening to what you want to hear; a recognised condition known as the psychology of denial.

I personally have published six reports looking at the financial implications of mitigating against the effects of climate change and have cited figures on Answers on several occasions.

There are about 22 plausible schemes that have been proposed for tackling climate change (and hundreds of variations thereof). The cheapest comes with a price tag of about $25 billion and involves the construction of a fleet of self propelled vessels, each equipped with a flettner rotor which would propel atomised sea-water into the atmosphere. The sodium chloride crystals would act as the condensation nuclei around which water vapour would condense and form marine stratocumuli clouds. These particularly reflective clouds would return incoming solar radiation back into space before it had time to reach us.
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/files/Latham%20Atmospheric%20Sciences%20%282002%29.pdf

At the other end of the scale is a proposal to construct a massive ‘sunshade’ out in space. This would be built at the Lagrange or L1 point some 1.5 million miles from Earth (where the Earth’s gravitational pull is balanced against that of the Sun). Sixteen trillion glass discs would be launched into space, each equipped with a solar sail and microprocessor, these would position each individual panel in place and so construct a sunshade some 100,000km wide. This would refract about 2% if the incoming solar energy and be enough to compensate for the human component of global warming.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17184.full#sec-7

Using existing technology the cost of such a scheme would be about $5 trillion. However, with the development of electromagnetic propulsion and launch systems the cost would drop significantly, perhaps to 1 or 2 trillion dollars.

Therefore the cost to mitigate climate change falls in the range of $25 billion to $5 trillion, which we now have to contrast against the cost of no mitigation. The most extensive study into this was commissioned by the British Government and the panel chaired by Lord Stern. The report is known as the Stern Review. In a best case scenario the annual cost of climate change has been calculated to be a global loss of $600 billion, in the worst case scenario the cost is put at $12 trillion a year. By comparison, the cost of mitigation is tiny (somewhere between one sixtieth and one seven hundred and twentieth).
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218142827/webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm...Show more

Dook is a harmless kid who I find quite entertaining if you don't take him too seriously. Does anybody here really think a YA post is going to change anything? I don't. And blocking somebody is utter futility. My wife has a yahoo account, so she can access the Dookster's ranting and ravings, and screw with him at my request. And you are right, the eco-nuts never stop to consider the economic cost of their grand plans to save the world. They never think things through.

{Note to Dook and others: My wife is legally entitled to an account here. There is nothing illegal about her viewing and reporting questions on this forum.}...Show more

Sorry, if not for the young drivers, there would be no Nascar, Jeff Gordon, Jr, Kyle, Kurt, Dale Sr, himself, would have all been off the track and no racing for anyone.. it is the sport of racing, and the young blood is needed to revive the sport, the older drivers tolerate them for this reason, keep the sport of Nascar alive and running... ban, the youngsters, then you would have to shut it down....Show more