Who Do You Believe? Recently a respondant admitted to deliberating misinforming people with his answers, in order to receive attention and collect points. I knew this was being done in this category, but was surprised that someone would admit this so casually.

Do you trust the answers you get in this category overall? Do you verify them (as for homework questions) before you use the info?

Are there some whose answers you trust to be right on the money? Some who%26#039;s %26quot;2 cents worth%26quot; isn%26#039;t worth even that?

Best Answer

To coin a old phrase; %26quot;we can learn from our mistakes, but it%26#039;s better to learn from others.%26quot; The complexity behind language interpretation, is almost anything can be taken out of context. When it comes to GW almost any and everything is relevant as for the science. What would that leave? Basically a tech manual, abstract, journal, citation, dissertation, or mathematical formulas...etc. Most people aren%26#039;t geared for that, hence the generalizations. It%26#039;s not that I trust or distrust, I like questions that take you down another path. On the average I don%26#039;t verify, only if it%26#039;s something I haven%26#039;t heard before. One proponent listed the atmospheric mixing as changing at certain levels. I knew it didn%26#039;t work that way, but he was right.

Asker's Rating:

A lot of good answers here, sorry I can%26#039;t reward them all. But yours provided a unique perspective that I find useful, since I%26#039;d like to continue posting here, despite the flaws in the system.

Thanks everybody, for the answers!

Other Answers (19)

• Who was it that admitted that? If you don%26#039;t want to say it here, you can email me through my profile. I%26#039;m very curious to know who made such an admission.
  
  I don%26#039;t necessarily believe anyone. There are people whose answers I%26#039;ve come to trust, but only because they%26#039;re consistently accurate and almost always contain supporting evidence. I could make a long list - gcnp, Ken, Bob, J S, Amy L, Benjamin, Alan, LRG, etc. It%26#039;s not just that I usually agree with them, but they always provide solid arguments with good supporting evidence. If they say something new that I haven%26#039;t heard, I always check their references to make sure it%26#039;s accurate.
  
  When a person makes a claim without supporting evidence, I only trust them if I already know it%26#039;s true (from viewing previous evidence). Most of the time (especially on YA) when somebody makes a claim without supporting evidence, it%26#039;s flat-out wrong. To be blunt, this is especially true of the deniers. The science isn%26#039;t on their side, and they rely on hearsay and misinformation, or don%26#039;t even bother to make scientific claims but rather stick to the realm of politics.
  
  The worst part is that the %26#039;top answerer%26#039; in this category is one of the worst at providing accurate information. He always says the same thing too - nobody can predict the future, eugenics, etc. Definitely not worth 2 cents.
• Amy, some people are more biased on the subject then others and you can easily figure out who these people are, since their answers are the same old boring rheteric. I have done research and if asked I%26#039;ll provide you with data, but alot of times I%26#039;m at work answring questions and don%26#039;t have the links readily available since there on my home computer.
  
  As for the person who admitted to deliberately misinforming people on here I%26#039;m sorry to here that. And its sorta sad they ffeel they need to do that to get validation. Most of us feel strongly about this topic, one way or another, and for someone to not really care and go about it just to collect points is crazy - I can%26#039;t find a better word to use. Since points really don%26#039;t matter in the scheme of things. I didn%26#039;t see our read that answer myself, but I%26#039;m curious so I%26#039;ll try to find it. ;-)
• I usually have a prejudice before answering. My job doesn%26#039;t require me to be a truth seeker, but from the media I hear and read I form my reality of the world, just like everyone else. I firmly believe anyone saying they are convinced by what is said here either hasn%26#039;t done their homework or is looking for support for a given idea.
  
  Lets be clear on this: this is not science its really social commentary about the environment, and how well the scientists are presenting their ideas. This may have implications on funding for their ideas. Or expanding their ideas into other areas.
  
  IF THE SHOE FITS ..
  
  You know the old question ; %26quot;If a tree falls in the forest and no one is ther to hear it, will it still make a sound?%26quot;
  
  The answer depends on your definition of sound.
  
  Now lets see %26quot;If the temperature of your refrigerator goes up and no one is there to measure it (or care about it) does it really get warm?%26quot;
  
  I have read that the very observation of sub-atomic particles keeps us from observing and obtaining absolute zero. So its just an idea and a calculation derived from observation.
  
  On a global warming idea being caused by man,,, this will be impossible to prove or disprove just because of the nature of observing and being observed. If the earth is warming is it natural or are we just measuring a slight fluctuation. We may never know cause the trend may continue then reverse, or reverse then come back and be a wider range in the next cycle or not as wide a range. In either case the measurement of temperature is relative to the person observing. Back in the 1960 and 70%26#039;s were were putting out CO2 in such amounts that the atmosphere would turn cold like Mars and we%26#039;d have global cooling with ice caps as far south as NewYork. This undoubtly was caused by a person like me reading information into studies and not taking all the true enviroment into consideration. then in the 1990%26#039;s we had the OZONE scare over Antartica. And found the hole discovered by infrared satilite scans was growing. Then is shrank. Too late for the US ecomony and for ole %26quot;Freon R12%26quot;. The expantion of the hole was theroized to be caused by Clorene gas that combines with O2 and causes it to fall out of the atmosphere. Too late did scientists consider the same gas being put in the atmosphere from natural evaporation and from volcanic activity. Even our own EPA%26#039;s answer to this was %26quot;well we cant%26#039;t do anything about evaporation or volcanoes, but we can stop clorene from refrigerant getting into the atmosphere%26quot;. SO now its stopped what about the hole did it heal? Get bigger, smaller, no one want to brag about their big enviromental impace publicly? If it saved the worlds ozone wouldnt you want to tell people it was a good thing? Alas no news is not news. And knowing what action we need to take (if any) to stop or reverse global warming might be the result of natural dewarming of the earth thus we%26#039;d never know if we caused it or not. So Im betting on idiots leading sheep to keep hammering their idiot idea into the heads of our grandchildren and keep the human cycle of not knowing alive.
• I have no faith what-so-ever when I see claims of highly degreed people hanging around on YA who simply parrot the opinions of officials like the IPCC. Being an observer, forecaster and meteorologist for nearly 30 years, I can assure you that most common forecasters are dubious of the claims of Climate Change, at least as a trend toward warming long into the future.