Why is it that more than half the time when you ask a question are the answers just rants about deniers and are not answers to the question?

There are many instances when no attempt at all is made to answer the question, the respondent simply launches into an attack on other users, or seizes the opportunity to push their opinion whether it was asked for or not and regardless as to whether it’s pertinent to the question.

There are other occasions when what masquerades as a question isn’t a question at all. It’s not intended to elicit answers or further the understanding of the asker, the primary purpose is to provoke a reaction and / or to promote an opinion.

I wonder if anyone would like to conduct a critical and honest analysis of the response types from both sides of the debate. Try to determine which side uses the most insults, which side avoids answering the questions etc. It’s been done three times so far that I’m aware of, the last time being perhaps three years ago. All I’ll say is that it’s not pleasant reading for one particular side of the debate.

From my own perspective…

• I can’t recall a single occasion when I haven’t specifically answered the question that was asked.

• I never rant about deniers, I don’t even call other users ‘deniers’, I call all people who question global warming ‘sceptics’, even if, by definition, some of them are deniers.

• I only criticise in response to criticisms received, I never instigate criticism.

Well, I have a few ideas:

- Some questions are just copy and paste from skeptic sites so the originality and thought involved is low

- Sometimes the question involves an element of insult which is responded to in kind

- Some may have a superiority complex and like to be insulting (It's fun to call people stupid??)

- There might be an element of cognitive dissonance which induces an uncomfortable feeling which is projected on anybody appearing to have a different view point

- Some on the environmentalist side are simply fanatics emulating their extremist green gods

I sometimes really wonder the root of the anger. I mean they have ALL the scientific academies in the world on their side as they often like to remind us. I would expect the response to "deniers" would be to just ignore them. But then again, I'm not a psychiatrist.

All answers should be based on science.

But when deniers respond, rather than half the time, all of the answers are rants about "warmers," rather than just more than half, because they don't have science to support their position.

Global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/wa...

And we are causing it

http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/fil...

The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

And people respond to this list of the ten warmest years with ad homs all the time.

Saying “half the time” is giving Deniers way more credit that they deserve because – truth be told – at least 90% of Denier questions are either explicit political rants or political rants weakly camouflaged by ignorant gibberish with a question mark at the end. Deniers are so scientifically ignorant that they are unable to ask questions about science.

For example, I doubt that you speak or write Navajo (unless you happen to be Navajo). Now, try asking a bunch of questions in Navajo. You might as well write “nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn?” – which would be meaningless, stupid, impossible to answer; and, so, people would eventually get fed up with your nonsense and start calling you names.

That is exactly how it is with Deniers. Their questions are as scientifically illiterate, meaningless, stupid, and impossible to answer as if they really did submit “nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn?” as their question. To make matters even worse, they defend their “nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn?” questions by screaming “eeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!” and whining “oooooooooooooo” or just making unintelligible grunting noises.

Deniers are ridiculed because they deserve to be.

Because that is how so many climate activists behave at the top level. Take a look at Michael Mann's twitter feed. He has declared Judy Curry 'anti-science'. Various others are labeled as being paid by the fossil fuel industry or the Koch Bros. Al Gore does the same. Even Obama compares skeptics to people who would deny the moon is solid rather than cheese.

I noticed some time ago that the Environment section becomes more like the Religion & Spirituality section every day

Go over there and see - it is under "Society and Culture"

. Substitute the word "denier" or "skeptic" for "atheist" or "agnostic" and you will see the posts are the same.

Thing is environmentalism has become the new world "religion" with arrogant, ignorant, vociferous evangelists screaming their warped self promoting garbage wherever they get the opportunity. Anyone who dares to argue is denounced as a heretic. It gets more like the Spanish Inquisition by the day.

Because the greenies do not have any real answers. So half the time they are just bluffing and the other half they are outright lying. "Hey! If you don't have an answer, just fake it!" is the greenie slogan.

Because most of the time the deniers' questions are too stupid to answer, so it's more fun to just tell them they are stupid.

Yes I notice that all the time. the other day I asked will there be a record Antarctic ice extent this year, a yes or no answer would have been sufficient, instead I had rants about deniers and no one answered the actual question.

A lot of "questions" here, including most of those that come from anti-science posters, are not really questions to begin with.