Is it better or worse if deniers block all non-deniers from answering their questions?

I'd say blocking is worse--you can't really blame someone for being stupid, you can however blame them for being closed-minded and stubborn.

When the deniers block proponents it does have a very negative effect on the as of yet uneducated folks, in that the uneducated who view such questions will see the answers that are in 100% agreement with the asker and could perhaps assume there are indeed no opposing viewpoints to denier ideology.

On the other hand, when stupid people ask questions and choose stupid answers, it will not have the same effect, as unbiased and uneducated readers of such questions will likely be able to tell right away that the asker is uneducated about the issue. The denier questions and denier answers are more persuasive than those of the simply stupid, in that they list laundry lists of "facts" that are convincing enough to sway anyone without a basic knowledge of the science, which most people do not have.

I think both are equally bad. I don't know where James' evidence comes from that you go round reporting people, unless you've disclosed this information? I've had 1 question and 2 answers deleted this week most likely from the same type of people that resort to blocking.

Blocking (for no good reason), asking insincere questions and reporting for no other reason than to score points off the opponent are all shallow and low.

I understand that this is supposed to be a forum to increase knowledge and share what you know but this section has many opinionated individuals and some of those have no desire whatsoever to learn or listen to anyone elses viewpoints, hence the blocking and reporting.

I think it's rather unfortunate really because the sad irony is that people on the opposing side just won't be willing to take the other view seriously and hence the cycle continues.

I tend to look at each individual response on it's own merit. For example, I've given thumbs up to individuals on one response where I might disagree with another. But I've noticed a trend that even a good neutral response from an individual on one question may automatically receive a thumbs down just because of their previous answers.

A friend of mine no longer participates on this site for these reasons and I'm starting to feel the same way.

EDIT:

Randall, I agree with what you are essentially stating but does it make a difference whether someone blocks you or not if you can still see their questions and still have the ability to report them anyway? Blocking someone won't stop them from reporting you.. unless you can't see the questions?

I think it's worse when someone blocks people they don't agree with. If you aren't interested in hearing other people's thoughts on the subject, probably you shouldn't be asking questions in a public forum.

There is, however, a decidedly sneaky way to get around the YA! blocking system. If someone has you blocked, and they've asked a question you simply *must* answer, just log out of your account, load the question, open a new window, sign back in to your account, and hit the Answer This Question button. Hey presto! You can now answer the questions of people who've blocked you. But be forewarned, once you've answered the question, you can't go back and edit it later, so be sure you've said everything you needed to the first time.

I've only been blocked by two and they are both in the question you link to (best answerer and last answer) but they/he weren't that bright about it as they/he blocked at exactly the same day for no reason other than answering with facts this told me all I needed to know, the later I.d I hadn't even answered in a few days.

"So which is worse - blocking all opposing viewpoints, or wasting peoples' time by pretending to ask sincere, open-minded questions?"

To answer your question, to me being blocked by the lead denier says, "I can't refute your points so I'm going to block you" this doesn't really say much for his faith in what he is saying. I have never blocked anyone even these two who have blocked me. If you can't reply to a fair question then you shouldn't be on this site. Blocking is meant to stop harassment and trolls this is stated in the site rules. Using it to block people who simple oppose your own view is a violation of the site rules and should be reported.

One Brilliant Mind: interesting answer

"Open minded? you are one of the most closed minded people here. You continue to use flawed studies with no Scientific facts to pursue your one sided agenda."

Considering you joined 1 day ago it's almost like you have the knowledge of someone who's been here much longer

Even if they pick a stupid answer as best answer but don't block sincere, opposing views, the information is still in their head so it has a chance to one day make it to the front. Completely blocking doesn't really help in the short or long run.

You gotta wish that by skill of giving them an answer, even one they do in contrast to they are going to pay interest. regrettably they seem to have little or no to declare (offering information that certainly iciness is chillier than summer season and refering to the south pole and the antarctic as though they're different places) so they're compenstating by skill of asserting it loudly and as frequently as possible. save attempting, yet do no longer waiste too lots attempt, it would desire to no longer be worth attempting to cajole some human beings. BTW, I do exactly like the link the place the lady who became picked because of the fact the suitable responce quite advised the asker that he became an idoit after which mentioned she felt grimy being linked along with his query.

Personally, there is only one person who I would consider blocking and that is because he answers my questions, and many others, in a rude and arrogant way (by the way it is not you).

Whether or not an answer is stupid is subjective. What is stupid to you, if fact to me and vice versa. I can say the same thing about proponent questions. Question -Why do deniers blah, blah, blah answer -because deniers are blah, blah, blah. Five stars totally agree. There are many such questions. I do it, you do it, most on this board do it.

I am a firm believer in freedom of speech. I do not like it when anybody blocks others, or tries to get other persons questions deleted. But what really amazes me is when proponents criticize censorship in YA, but find nothing wrong with censorship in the real world. Many prestigious magazines refuse to publish articles that contradict the finding of the IPCC. They do not reject it because it is bad science but because "it is of no interest to its readers".

Then you have the story of Dr. Jaworowski. in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding.

If we take something as a given, and refuse to look at other possibilities, how can the truth ever be found? That is why censorship in any form, is the worst thing in a democratic society and should not be tolerated or justified, especially at the scientific level.

The blocking game is an odd one. My guess is that they don't want "those" answers as part of the body of answers. I don't think it's pathetic, just contrary to the intent of a forum. That said, I recently blocked one denier for regularly chiming in with nothing to say. At least most put forth some sort of argument. It just didn't seem fair to let him rack up points on my questions when I was denied the chance to answer his.

So which is worse? You have to use points to ask a question, I suppose. The other day Dr. J asked at least 40 points worth of questions. He obviously was a very curious fellow that day, or had been saving them up, or just wanted the column chock full of HIS questions! But only 1 or 2 was really worthy of asking. I didn't chime in, rarely do on that crowd, but at least I have the opportunity, when not blocked, to do so.

It is because they think you are the great Yahoo reporter who uses “not a question or answer” to get answers and questions you politically disagree with deleted. Even some of the fence siting believers who will make comments in favor of nuclear power or question the rationality of the gloom and doom scenario think this is your doing and so block you. For myself I feel it is because you had a bad education that left you prone to following an unproven guilt trip religion that you feel gives you purpose that is otherwise not there in your work.

I on the other hand am working hard to present scientific answers to questions invoked by people confused by fundamentalist religious fanatics that are telling the innocents that the mildest climate optimum in 8,000 years is going to roast the earth and broil everybody. Here is just how far off base the alarmists really are. Take for instance a city that last year had an overall average temperature of 75°. This is of course achieved by taking the coldest night temp and hottest day temp every day and determining the mid point and recording that for a year. You then would add these 365 numbers together and divide by 365 to determine the annual average temperature of that location.

So let us say that last year’s average was 75° and that 100 years ago in 1908 it was 74.5°. This is the amount of change we have had in 100 years and they expect the same change in the next 100 years so its average then will be 75.5° so the average temperature over a year in 2108 will be exactly 1 degree warmer than it was in 1908. Now is this a terrible enough thing to talk of starving a couple of million to a billion human beings to death for, because this is exactly what their bio fuel sustainable fuel supply pogrom will do if it is allowed to proceed as planned.

I think it is worse blocking all opposing viewpoints