What are appropriate questions for the global warming forum?

Y!A is a public forum; therefore, we all should refrain from grouping and labeling, name calling, etc. These behaviors are counterproductive in gathering and sharing information. Furthermore, they are apt to create opposition.

Since joining Y!A, I've learned SO much about global warming. Although I am often annoyed and frustrated by the content of some answers (from both sides of the the debate), I'm not ready to leave this site. I realize that there will always be others who don't hold the same beliefs; however, a 'clean' debate would improve the Y!A experience for everyone.

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

Although blocking isn't ideal, (at the current time), it's the best solution to avoid disrespectful language and unjust reporting.

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

As a side note, these questions really don't belong here, either:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnTB6...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am8dS...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Apkdc...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=At44S...

I agree with you whole-heartedly.

There are some petty and inflammatory questions asked by both sides and think that the debate would be far more productive if the focus of the discussion took a turn towards the examples of questions outlined above.

Unfortunately, this section of YA is so far removed from the science aspect it's almost laughable. Those truly seeking an answer to a question are either overwhelmed by the number of stupid and dogmatic responses or the question is pointed enough that no one answers. Other than politics and the religion section, this is one of the few sections where you see a lot of thumbs up and thumbs downs given.

I have to say though, this forum has played a large part in forming my opinion and in contributing to my knowledge of climate change. I've recently found myself far more accepting of the science (biological projections tend to still make me a bit queasy though) and far less tolerant of the uneducated and retarded answers that some of the 'deniers' give. I think it's the responsibility of those taking part in this forum to wade through the crap and form their own opinion.

Either way, I hope you don't stop participating in this forum, I greatly appreciate the moderating impact you have on the discussion, even if your responses are a bit curt from time to time (but that's just me calling the kettle black).

As with any discussion or debate, questions (and answers) serve the debate most effectively when they are issue oriented and advance the discussion rather than truncate it. This seems to be a nuance that has escaped us in the political arena, as the goal seems to be to get the opposition to shut up and sit down instead of resolve problems. And, as we consider problems, global warming-regardless of one's position-is one of the most critical issues we are contending with today.

Perhaps in this venue our opinions and discussion (if one can call it that) have little if any impact on the eventual outcome, but one would think that people who feel as passionately as they obviously do on the topic (just as people's passions become inflamed by politics in general) would have a vested interest in influencing other people rather than alienating them. Sadly, though, this has not been the case-at least certainly not here.

When it comes to new participants in this category, it seems to me that by and large they proceed incautiously, not unlike walking into a frat party unnanounced and univited and challenging the fullback on the university team to a wrestling match. That's really not advisable at a frat party, and it doesn't work here very well either.

From my point of view, I pretty much ignore the irrelevant questions and comments unless there is humor fodder in them, and although I haven't ever blocked anyone, there are certain participants that have no credibility in my eyes and therefore no influence on me.

But in general, I have to agree that this forum would be better off without questions such as you offer up as examples. On the other hand, I probably wouldn't visit as much without the anticipation of such gems of humor. Which, like acheiving level 7 as you so aptly noted, may not mean anything of significance to anyone other than the recipient of the dubious honor.

EDIT: I note that Jim Z is calling for a truce and I personally think that is a very good idea among all of us who regularly participate here. We can certainly disagree and allow for a little heated debate from time to time, but I for one would really like to see and read more serious and issue related discussions. Although I am a minor player and participant in this category, I absolutely admit I can get pretty sharp-tongued and sarcastic in my remarks and have irked other participants. I'll definitely sign a treaty to try to be more civil too, if it makes any difference to anyone. Maybe if the regulars set the tone, the newbies will be a little more careful in their questions and remarks-seems that newcomers frequently spark fights, deliberately or otherwise. And you know, I have also wondered from time to time if a kid-for example-comes here for the first time and innocently asks a question that sparks a flame war or tirade. Maybe many of us could be a little more...empathetic, I guess, in our initial responses.

I agree with Dana that the psychology of climate change is itself an interesting arena of discussion. Perhaps including some subcategories would help people find the questions they are looking for.

Blocking is an extreme reaction that is itself open to abuse, but which is intended to limit further abuse. I don't think that it is always a problem, but it can easily become one.

On the whole, I agree.

I keep on resolving to pass up silly questions, and keep on breaking my resolution.

Blocking is a more difficult issue. I have blocked two people myself. There are some silly personal vendettas here, and a lot of denialists lodging objections to perfectly sound questions (I am not in a position to have noticed the reverse effect), so some of us use blocking in self defence.

BTW, I commended jim in my last answer. There's a first time for everything.

I often go back to a post and see a snide remark from you and it irritates me. I find you to be well above most other alarmists in intellect so it is that much more irritating.

I call for a truce. I won't bash you. I also will try not to bash anyone for that matter. I doubt that either one of us is a rude person in real life.

Appropriate questions are ones like why Yahoo has an automotive section and questions about buying or selling cars after IPCC Report implies cars should be obsolete.

Yahoo says things quite often like there is nothing here right now try a question instead after it being suggested the IPCC report was more important than automobiles.

Anyway your questions are explained in that deniers support the car section in Yahoo answers.

As advertisements for Ford cars will attest.

Lighten up.

This is a Q&A forum.

Without a bit of controversy...inflammatory debate, why would you bother coming here.

The truth is...there are contributors here who believe climate change is a major issue worth addressing and there are others who disagree entirely.

What is wrong with that.

Sure...occasionally the debate is fiery and perhaps antagonistic..but would you bother dropping by if it wasn't.

Long live free debate and the opportunity to present a point of view, regardless of any criticism.

There is a range of inappropriate questions lately from the pure troll like this

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ap...

To lesser but still fairly troll like repetitive nonsense like these

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ah...

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=An...

In some strange world this idiot thinks this is funny, violence, implied rape, all from the eternally unfunny Will Farrell. I think all this really shows is the level some denier minds operate at, and it's not pretty. That they post this sort of crap and then whine "why wont you take us seriously" is actually a far better joke.

In an ideal world there would be a climate science discussion section, a climate policy section, and maybe a psychology of denial section. I suppose for the latter I could ask these questions in the Psychology section, but I think they're just as appropriate here, where people have experience observing and interacting with global warming deniers. While these sorts of questions are to some degree an outlet for frustrations in arguing with less than sane people, the psychology of deniers does genuinely interest me. I think it's a very interesting topic of discussion. I still have a hard time understanding how we evolved with denial as a defense mechanism, why people become more entrenched in their false beliefs when presented with concrete evidence that they're false, etc.

Unfortunately there's only one global warming section, so all this stuff gets lumped together.

As for blocking, I find it's a useful tool. There are *a lot* of people on this site who have no interest in learning anything, don't contribute anything remotely intelligent in their answers, and in fact often resort to insults and/or propagating misinformation in their answers. To me blocking serves 3 purposes.

1) Preventing these individuals from clogging up my questions with useless responses or using them as a vehicle to propagate lies.

2) Reminding me not to waste time answering their "questions".

3) Minimizing the number of my questions which are wrongfully removed, as the people who offer these sorts of "answers" are invariably also the people who abuse the reporting system. I used to have my questions removed regularly, but have had few removed since I started blocking people.

I try to be reasonable with who I block. I don't block guys like jim or bravozulu or Expeller even though their answers can be rather abrasive and uninformative. But I'm sorry, I get tired of hearing how global warming is all a hoax perpetrated by fraudulent climate scientists in order to make Al Gore rich. I put in over 3 years on this site without blocking anyone (except Jello). For my efforts I had countless Q&As wrongfully removed, my account wrongfully suspended twice, and had to read hundreds of useless (or worse) answers from the same group of people. I had enough of it.

Improved civility would probably be helpful. I could probably stand to be a little less sarcastic when my patience wears thin. But I don't think the tone on this site (or in general between deniers and realists) is going to improve much. I certainly can't respect people who reject science and oppose carbon regulations for solely ideological reasons. I can try to tolerate them a little better and be more civil though.