Study finds that Y!A is suboptimal for questions requiring factual answers...?

First off, congratulations on one of the most starred questions to have appeared in this section.

One of the great things about Answers is also one of its greatest downfalls. Namely that it’s open to everyone and that there is no requirement for any comprehension of the subject being discussed. To this end there have been any number of truly bizarre claims and counter-claims.

In the global warming section, this lack of knowledge is compounded by the contentious nature of the subject, the manifestation of which is the appalling level of opinion and fallacy being presented as fact. At times this reveals itself as nothing short of staggering incompetence, gross ineptitude and the deliberate desire to lie and deceive in order to achieve self-gratification.

There is of course, nothing wrong with expressing opinions and having beliefs; there is nothing wrong with skepticism. Indeed, all of these should be openly encouraged.

But all too often we get people who hold a particular belief and have convinced themselves that they are right and that they have the absolute authority to dictate that opinion to others [1]. This is primarily the domain of the denier, but not exclusively so.

This conviction becomes something of an obsession, so much so that rationality, reason and the ability to expand intellectually are dispensed with completely. It takes close-mindedness to the extreme. I could name names at this point but I think most regular users of this section will have no problem identifying certain users by these traits.

The danger therefore becomes one of misinformation and propaganda being accepted as fact by innocent people. In a democratic society this is a totally abhorrent concept but is one that some people are willing to exploit.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<< So, can we expect to receive factual answers or answers based on opinion, here in the AGW section? >>

Many of the answers that are provided are excellent, some of are exceptional. Similarly, some of the answers are mediocre and others are truly horrendous. The difficulty some people will have is in separating the wheat from the chaff. If you don’t know about a subject it’s often impossible to distinguish right from wrong.

We will continue to receive factual answers and we will continue to receive answers based on opinion. To differentiate between the two it may be prudent to include links to credible sources or to provide citations to substantiate the validity of the answer.

<< Can we believe the claims of skeptics (or really AGW realists, too) who don't provide reliable links to support their ideas? >>

I think that depends largely on how familiar the user is with this section. After a while you get to know who will provide an answer based on facts and who will rely on fiction. For the regular users this isn’t a problem.

However, for the casual visitor to GW they have no track record to go on, I doubt that many people go back through the Q and A histories or read a user’s profile. The upshot being that the reader is faced with conflicting opinions and consequently a) goes away as confused as ever or b) sides with the arguments that best fit any preconceived notion they may have had. Neither of which is a satisfactory outcome.

It is therefore important to present an accurate answer with suitable citations and links to credible sources.

<< I seems skeptics continue to repeat the same arguments that have already been debunked by science.>>

Prior to Climategate I had a website which amalgamated many of the arguments used by the skeptics into one place [2]. Over time more than 200 such arguments were accumulated on the site.

Despite the sizeable number of skeptics arguments available, one thing I’ve noticed is that skeptics tend to stick to just one or two arguments and disregarding even what the other skeptics are saying.

To this end we have some skeptics who maintain that the present warming is due to recovery from an ice-age, others maintain that it relates to sunspot activity, others blame volcanoes and so on.

These arguments have been debunked so thoroughly and so repeatedly that it defies belief that someone can continue to rely upon them.

There are a lot of unanswered questions surrounding global warming and climate change; there are many uncertainties, unqualified and unquantified variables, unknown cycles, counteracting and contradictory forces and many unknowns. The impression I get is that the majority of skeptics know so little about climate science that they’re incapable of comprehending anything but the most simplistic ideas. If they did have even a basic comprehension of the science they would be conducting their debate on a very different level and asking the awkward questions.

<< How much of AGW skepticism is based on opposition to carbon regulations (or other political issues), rather than on actual science?>>

I suspect that it’s not actually that much. Carbon regulations provide a convenient cause célèbre at which many skeptical fingers are pointed but I think the real reason may be more deep-rooted than that.

Undoubtedly, carbon regulation is often touted as the villain of the piece from which the notion of climate change has arisen as the pretext for imposing taxes and other financial impediments. But in reality, the skeptic’s arguments are the same now as they always have been.

When somebody forms an opinion it’s often difficult for them to change, especially when that opinion relates to a contentious issue and is one by which thy have set out their stall [3]. It’s quite probable that some of today’s more vociferous skeptics and deniers will take their beliefs with them to the grave, irrespective of anything that happens in the world around them. We have witnessed this behaviour before; perhaps most notably from those who steadfastly refused to accept that smoking was harmful.

How much AGW skepticism is based on science? On this forum that would be something of a rare event, there’s some pseudoscience that keeps cropping up but invariably this is the outcome of oil industry funded propaganda.

Science and skepticism go hand in hand and this should always be so. Without skepticism science would find it very hard to advance. However, there is a world of difference between constructive and destructive skepticism and unfortunately, on Answers, it’s the latter that prevails.

[1] I am aware that this is how some people may perceive me to be, but when I make a statement I do so knowing that it is backed up by scientific facts, figures and evidence, I do not pass opinion off as fact.

[2] This was one of several sites that were hosted on one of our work servers. After the Climategate hacking incident we blocked public access to the server. The skeptics kind of shot themselves in the foot with this one because one of the sites listed many of the uncertainties and problems surrounding the science of climate change.

[3] Apologies for the slightly psychological perspective of the answer, it’s the consequence of having a mother who’s a retired lecturer in psychology.

It is supposed to be a place where people can help people with knowledge and understanding. There are alot of answers to questions that can be looked up but there are alot that can't. Even many of those that can are either hard to understand or not fully understandable without others' personal experience. Those who worry about how to phrase a question so it doesn't get deleted, don't have a clue what this site is all about or they wouldn't have to worry about it. Many people have become friends from being on this site and that's fine. y/a staff recognizes that possibility and has made options for that happening, but the q/a forum itself is not a socializing forum no matter how many people think it is and try to make it such.

Any answers posted on a public site are going to be the opinions of the people who post. I hope you enjoyed this study - hope you got school credit or something - but honestly, anyone who has any sense will not look for expert advice in a place like this. Some people DO give good links and good advice.

Re global warming -- the energy billionaires pay a disinformation machine to push the idea that global warming is "controversial." The entire "controversy" is generated by propaganda professionals. They're selling out their own survival for money.

Yahoo Answers is for entertainment. I think that properly used Y/A can be a source of information too, but relying on the answers people give and making major decisions without requiring any kind of credentials on the part of the answerer would be idiotic.

Some of the questions and answers given here in the global warming category are just moronic, it is a sad comment on the state of education in the world today.

The result of all this mass media, blogging, cable "news" etc, is simply to undermine the power of all human expertise and to conflate scientific reasoning cultivated through years of careful study as being equal with any opinion that any lazy jackass with an axe to grind or political belief to defend and a computer with an internet connection can dream up on the toilet. It becomes impossible for the public to discern the difference between wheat and chaff, and they lose respect and interest in the very pursuit of the wheat altogether. This also serves as a portal for fringe and baseless beliefs to be mainstreamed.

Study finds that Y!A is suboptimal for questions requiring factual answers...?

No surprises there; in spite of the valliant efforts of Dana and a few others, there's just so much garbage on this forum! There is good information but you need to be able to recognise it amongst all the politics and pseudo-science!

Anyway, I just wanted to say congratulations on the number of stars you have received for this question. Its currently heading for the ninth spot on the list of most popular global warming questions!

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylt=ApDmA93...

Keep 'em coming!

No question asker should trust the answer of anyone on a public site like YA. This particularly applies to subjects where political biases are in play like AGW. It's also precisely why I try to always support what I say with a link to some sort of primary scientific source. I don't expect people to just believe what I say, I expect them to check my sources.

Unfortunately many people can't seem to distinguish the bad answers from the good ones. Usually it's because they're predisposed toward a certain answer, and are basically just fishing for someone to tell them what they want to hear. Then they choose a "best answer" that says something like "AGW is a hoax because Al Gore bought a house on the beach", and usually in choosing this answer they say something like "you're the only one who gave me the facts" when in reality a half dozen other answers provided accurate information with links to scientific sources. But they didn't tell the asker what he wanted to hear. That's denial, and why they're called deniers.

You can get good factual answers in this section. There are a number of answerers here who are knowledgeable about the subject and provide scientific references in their answers. But you have to be able to filter out the bad answers to get to the good ones. It's really not that hard - if an answer doesn't have supporting evidence from a valid scientific source, you can probably just throw it in the garbage. But obviously for many askers here, it's not about getting factual answers to begin with.

From my experience, 99% of AGW denial is based on pre-determined conclusions, which are biased due to opposition to carbon regulations (and "big government"). This is also why the vast majority of AGW deniers are political conservatives. Their "logic" goes like this:

1) I don't like government

2) Carbon regulation = increased goverment

3) Thus I oppose carbon regulation

4) But if AGW is true, I can't justify opposing carbon regulation

5) Therefore AGW must be false

If deniers were honest with themselves, they would admit that opposition to carbon regulation is the only reason they reject AGW. Sometimes they actually will admit it, saying something like "I don't have to prove my case because I'm not the one pushing for carbon regulation". It's a tacit admission that their 'skepticism' is entirely based on opposition to carbon regulation. But they can't admit that's the only reason for their AGW denial, because, well, they're in denial.

I answer in science sections as pro bono teaching, especially when I see wrong answers, or when the q shows a genuine desire to learn. Most qq are at high school or intro uni level; experts use different tools, and this is not surprising.

I also answer qq there from creationists, not in the hope of convincing them but in the hope of publicly exposing their fallacies. Again, this is not high level stuff.

This section is a bit different. We have some real experts, some scientifically well informed semi-experts (eg me), some clowns, and some experts on rhetoric. I have now given up on arguing with the jims and Meadows, but continue to use this section to inform my contacts of developments at the research or political level that they may have missed.

Perhaps they should do a study on the quality of answers from people with multiple accounts (Like NW Jack above...oops I mean Portland Joe), and how they give themselves a top contributor rating to make themselves seem more credible.

Most questions are advice or opinion. If someone really wants factual answers, they should be researching it and citing sources, not asking on Yahoo.