Too many false claims happening on yahoo. Don't you think we need some monitoring here?

Question

I have seen so many questions( actually are more of opinions) that are absolutely baseless or can be categorized as semi-literate. Bigger problem is they are more of opinions than questions with eye catching head liners. This happens quite a lot on religion. And more bigger problem is people start adding their comments on stuff like global warming without proper sources.
I have seen 2 bad cliams
1) Many people keep claiming global warming as a myth with no proper sources just to make sure they are running their gas guzzlers guilt free. They don't like people raising the opinions or talking about alternative like using bicycle or public transport for PERSONAL means.
2) It is bad to blame on other nations without proper sources.
This is a comment from a source on kyoto protocol.

"Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement despite their relatively large populations."

Check my sources.

Answer 1

*Edit*



I "broke the bank" as welI. I deleted the first three responses to you, although I still have them if you need to see them again.



*Edit* In response to Chuda below.





Yes, I am well aware of who the editors of realclimate are. I do bother to fact check before I post any information. Had you looked a little closer you might have realized that realclimate is run by eleven climate scientists. That's right, eleven. Not two.

As for the hockey stick graph, they did not just "feed random data" in as you claim. The debate over the hockey stick graph is highly technical, and still continues to this day.

Why wouldn't Michael Mann try and refute the attacks? It would be ridiculous for him not to. Of course he's going to claim the graph is still valid, and well he should until proven otherwise.

Even if that particular hockey stick graph is flawed (which I just assume it is, since I haven't the technical knowledge to understand any of the arguments) there are many, many more independent studies that show the same thing. The only real difference being that handle of the stick isn't quite as flat.



And Monckton does claim that he didn't assume Earth was a black body with no greenhouse effect, but he never backs up this statement. He simply makes the claim and expects us to believe it. As far as I can tell, he has yet to attempt rebutting their arguments.

Another thing, why doesn't he have his work published in a scientific journal? If he is so confident that his theory debunks AGW (anthropogenic global warming), why doesn't he put it up for peer review?



Monckton "claims" that he received 500 emails, and he says that the majority support his conclusions, but I see no real reason to accept this claim. It doesn't even make sense. If there are really that many scientists who disagree with global warming, why don't they just speak out? Or rather, why do they only speak out in letters to Christopher Monckton?



Monckton's claim that "60 leading climatologists" signed the letter is an out and out lie. You might want to take a look at exactly who it was that signed this letter. Many of the signatories are non-scientists, or lack relevant scientific backgrounds. Also, more than half of the signers cite positions that they no longer hold. Only two of them (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) are currently in positions in a university department or a recognized, research institute related to climate science. One of the signers (Gordon E. Swaters) has actually recanted, because he said he was "mislead as to the content of the letter."



The majority of climate scientists do agree with me (or rather, I agree with the majority of climate scientists) that global warming is real and a threat. It's not a question of whether or not it's a threat, it's simply a question of how a much of a threat it is.

Like I said, I agree with you that there isn't enough evidence to do anything drastic yet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything at all.



Let's have another quote from Mike Hulme: “I believe climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory.”



Hmm, so it looks like he is on "my side" after all.



*Edit*





In response to Chuda below (this is most likely my final response, as it seems our only remaining disagreements are fairly minor).



In regards to the hockey-stick graph. I've honestly never heard the "random data producing hockey stick" argument before. I'm going to research the matter before making any final decisions. But like I said, I've always just pretended that that particular graph was broken anyway, simply because the debate over it was to technical for me to understand.

As for respecting the person trying to defend it, I certainly think we should, as that "person" seems to consist of quite a lot of climate scientists. I don't think anyone is trying to mislead anyone with the graph, since whether or not the graph (or the models used to create it) is faulty is still disputed.



But anyway, even if that particular graph is broken, that still leaves us with dozens of other proxy reconstructions from different people using different measuring methods, all of which support the general conclusion. Which is all that I'm really concerned with.



And The general conclusion is:



"Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."



http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwar... 



And no, the sceptics most certainly should not be muzzled. A little scepticsm is absolutely necessary in science. I don't think the original question was proposing that the sceptics be muzzled, rather, that there should be monitoring to stop false claims being made. That would mean false claims on either side of the debate.



And finally, I just want to correct you on what exactly my quote was. I said "If global warming turns out to be quite serious, and we do nothing, I don't even want to consider what the cost may be." The key word being "if."

It seems you, mister Hulme and I are pretty much in agreement here.


I salute you on the solar panels. That's more than a lot of AGW "activists" have done.



If you reply to this, and I don't respond, it's not because I didn't see it. I will check back, but like I said, this is most likely my last post. It's been a pleasure debating with you sir.



P.S. I suggest you do a bit of reading on the "medieval warm period" issue. A good place to start would be the blog linked at that bottom of my post.

Answer 2

I totally agree with you about the problem. However I quite like the idea that people show their true colours and their limitations because this is a slice of the world, it is real and it is what I am up against in my daily life.



Here I can experiment with different ways to meet ignorance and obfuscation safely so I can find out how to meet this blocking energy in the 3D world.



I had thought often how blissful it would be to have a thread that only people who are committed to reasonable discussion could

join but then there might still be a hierarchy; we could end up with a discussion of one.



The spoilers are always with us. I am amazed at how many 'cool' people just write one abusive word as an answer, but I want to find the way through for myself and not have someone to do it for me.

Answer 3

If things were monitored that closely it would be a bad thing, we the users monitor things, but people should be allowed an opinion, (even though it may be a wrong opinion), we can see when someone has got it wrong. Racists should be taken off, but it should be left to us to report them.

We know there are a few who will always dispute facts, but so what? Others can fill them in with proper information.

Answer 4

'...newer articles may still contain significant misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Users need to be aware of this in order to obtain valid information and avoid misinformation'





Straight from the horses mouth so to speak, and stop making repeat postings





OH, two little points that can be easily verfied by reading the news, or a journal or two.

China is putting up a coal powerstation every week

ONE of China's open cast mines that caught fire (there are many due to little regulation) produces more Co2 than all the cars in the UK



So be safe in your 4x4

Answer 5

Sure! Would be a nightmare trying to do so probably, but in an ideal world...

By the way, it's like a balsam on an open sore to read something that makes any moderate sense (let alone actually be intelligent) in here, cheers man!!!

Answer 6

you might be interested in Al Gore's DVD if you haven't already seen it, this is about emissions etc. not your point about false claims but you seem like someone who is interested in further information about things. "An Inconvenient Truth". What it does show statistically is that the USA, refusenik to kyoto agmt, is actually much worse on harming the envirnoment than either India or China.

Answer 7

Understand this:



1) Yahoo is moniterd 24/7 by yahoo technical support



2) Freedom of speech and ideas allows anyone user the right to post anything that does not break the terms and aggreements of Yahoo.



3) If you feel there is a problem with a question don't bother complaining about it, please use the report function.

Answer 8

You have some interesting points. I also get fed up with people making outrageous claims. Most of them are designed to shock and upset other races/religions.



have a suggestion for you though. If you are going to complain about other peoples literacy you should really consider your own turn of phrase. You have spelling mistakes and gramatical errors littered throughout this posting.

Answer 9

Hi, A man called Chuda here, responding to Disgracedfish...



:::edit:::



Anyone who's read this far, probably knows who I'm responding too! :)



You mention www.realclimate.org several times. The problem with that site is that it's run by two of the people who produced the IPCC's infamous "hockey-stick" graph, mentioned above. Now, to re-cap, these people created a computer model that produces hockey-stick graphs, even if you put random data into it; and they continue to claim that their graph is accurate and valid. And you want to quote *these* people? Sir, with respect, I suggest you find yourself better sources! Oh, and in their article "cuckoo science" they basically say that Monckton had wrongly assumed the Earth was a "blackbody" with no greenhouse effect at all. He commented on this in his next article; they were wrong, he hadn't.



You then try to suggest that all climate scientist are agreed that global warming is real and dangerous. This is simply *not* true! It is typical of the sort of miss-information that people like realclimate.org spout. In response to Monckton's article, he received about 200 emails. He says... "About a third are scientists, including well-known climatologists and a physicist who confirmed my calculations. Some advise governments.



Nearly all condemn the "consensus". Most feel that instead of apologising, the UN has misled them, especially by using the defective "hockey-stick" temperature graph."



Also, in Canada, sixty leading climatologists and scientists in related fields wrote to the Canadian Prime Minister, saying; "'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate change catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from the natural 'noise'.



They went on to say; "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."



So, as I said, *not* all scientists are in agreement with you. You *believe* they are, because you are being mislead by sites such as realclimate.org and people who are out to make a fast buck (Al Gore, etc).



I'll leave the final word to a "consensus" (i.e. he's on *your* side) scientist - Mike Hulme. Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research...



"Over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country - the phenomenon of "catastrophic" climate change.



It seems that mere "climate change" was not going to be bad enough, and so now it must be "catastrophic" to be worthy of attention.



The increasing use of this pejorative term - and its bedfellow qualifiers "chaotic", "irreversible", "rapid" - has altered the public discourse around climate change.



This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as "climate change is worse than we thought", that we are approaching "irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate", and that we are "at the point of no return".



I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.



It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel turns."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm



:::edit:::



More response to disgracedfish,



Hockey-stick graph; sorry, I obviously didn't explain myself clearly. I was not suggesting that the IPCC had put random data into their computer model to produce the graph. I accept that they fed in their carefully selected climate data (minus a few titbits (Medieval Warm Period, anyone? which they left in a folder marked "censored")). Rather, what I was pointing out was that independent tests demonstrated that *if* you fed random data into the model, it would, more often than not, produce a hockey-stick graph as a result. So, the question has to be asked; how much confidence should we have in such a model? And how much respect should we have for someone who tries to defend it?



I must confess that I was not aware of Dr. Swaters' retraction, because he felt that he was mislead. I did a search, and you are quite correct. Misleading people is wrong, as I'm sure you would agree. Thus, I'm equally sure you would join me in condemning anyone, if it could be shown that they were consistently misleading the entire population of the world - see "hockey-stick" graph, above! ;-)



Also on the page I found regarding Dr Swaters' retraction was the following quote about the signatories; "The remainder were largely well-known climate change "skeptics" from around the world". The writer seems to be suggesting that their views should be ignored *because* they are sceptics, which brings us neatly back to the original topic of this question.



Should the sceptics be muzzled?



Finally, while, at one point, you said something along the lines of "I dread to think what the cost [of global warming] will be" which sounds a bit too close to Mike Hulme’s "pejorative term" (catastrophe) to me, you have also said; "I agree with you that there isn't enough evidence to do anything drastic yet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything at all."



So, speaking as someone who has solar panels on his roof to heat his hot water - not to save money (the savings will never offset the cost of having them installed), but to do my own, small, non-drastic "bit" for the environment - I wonder how far apart we really are on this subject!

Answer 10

HI

I think that some of the stuff here is ridiculous but if you start deleting everything you don't like then it wouldn't be right either, just do what I do and ignore the stuff you don't care for.

Lammy

Answer 11

If I've understood your question correctly, you are saying that global warming sceptics should not be allowed to make baseless claims?



Is that right?



Well, what about the numerous global warming alarmists who make equally baseless claims? The same should be true of them too, surely?



Reading between the lines, what I think you are also suggesting is that global warming is a big problem and that we should all be moving heaven & earth to try and fix it - and anyone who says otherwise should be silenced.



Is *that* what you believe? Very democratic.



The simple fact is that the causes of global warming are not fully understood - despite what you *think* you know - and despite what Al Gore might say in his Hollywood movie.



The truth is that though CO2 and other greenhouse gases are likely to be a contributing factor to global warming, they are not likely to be the only factor, and may not even be the main one.



If we were to move heaven & earth to stop all mankind's CO2 production, we my find it has little or no effect on global warming.



Will *you* pay me back what it cost me, if that happens?



BTW, feel free to check my sources!



:::edit:::



In response to disgracedfish, below...



I *do* accept that global warming is real, what is in dispute is (a) the cause, and (b) whether it's going to be a problem. Much of the "evidence" that you refer to is being discredited - including the IPCC's report, as you would have known had you bothered to read my sources.



And your final comment, reversing my "Will *you* pay me back..." quote, is nonsense. By your logic we should go along with every crack-pot theory ever offered on any subject, on the off-chance that they may be correct. Some say that global warming is caused by God as His punishment for turning our backs on Him. Should we all get down on our knees and pray to Him, just in case? Hardly.



Also remember that, despite the global warming alarmists using words such as "catastrophe", "irreversible" and "tipping point", there is no reason to believe that we are in any imminent danger from global warming. Planet Earth has been much warmer than it is today in the relatively recent past, with no noticeable problems for humankind.



I believe the correct course of action is to wait and continue to study, until such time as we can come to a firm consensus on what action should be taken - something that is decidedly lacking at the present time.



In other words – look before we leap!



:::edit:::



In response to disgracedfish' response to me, below...



At no point in my answer have I suggested that CO2 is not one of the causes of global warming. There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Nor is there any doubt that CO2 levels are increasing in the atmosphere. Therefore it is logical to assume that this increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause the planet to warm up a bit. But, the sixty-four thousand dollar question is; by how much? What I *do* suggest is that, as yet, no one has offered a conclusive, irrefutable answer to that question.



As Christopher Monckton points out, almost all the observed increase in temperature could have been caused by the sun - and he shows the calculations that lead to that conclusion - try them for yourself.



So you found Lord Monckton's article "quite lacking in the evidence discrediting department." did you? So, the fact that he shows "how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect." is irrelevant, is it? Or how about the infamous "hockey-stick" graph that completely deleted the Medieval Warm Period and was created by a computer model that produced "hockey-stick" graphs even when random data was fed in. Garbage in - "hockey-stick graph out!



As for the "pay me back" comment, "all we've lost is money"? Yes, billions of pounds of it if the global warming alarmists get their way. Frankly I need to be a bit more sure that action is really needed before I part with my hard earned cash.



You then say "I don't even want to consider what the cost may be." Given the state of the evidence I'd guess that the cost will be about the same as what the "Millennium Bug" cost us! (I wonder how worried you were about that storm in a tea cup?)



Ok, perhaps "crack-pot" was going too far, but the point is that the jury is still very much out on the issue, so it is still too early to start taking major action on the strength of the current evidence.



I must confess that I've never heard that people are more worried about how fast the planet is warming than how hot it will eventually get. I wouldn't worry about that though, because, of course, it's not heating up as fast as the predictions had us believe. It is for this reason that the alarmists are now claiming that the "missing" heat has been sucked up by the sea!



And finally, in answer to your last comment, here's what Lord Monckton said on the issue in his following article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml&page=2)...



"Shouldn't we take precautions, just in case? No. The "precautionary principle" kills. Example. DDT: correct solution, limit it in agriculture but allow indoor spraying against malarial mosquitoes. Actual solution: give the inventor a Nobel Prize, then say the chemical is cancerous (it's safe enough to eat) and ban it, especially for indoor spraying. Result, only this year, after 30 million and more have died from malaria, has the WHO agreed to recommend indoor spraying."



Or if you want another example of why we should leave well alone, try this... http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html It's a speech by Michael Crichton. It's long, but about a third of the way down he talks about Yellowstone National Park and the unmitigated disaster that ensued when humans tried to "manage" it. He sums up...



"Is this really the end of the world? Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods?



No, we simply live on an active planet. Earthquakes are continuous, a million and a half of them every year, or three every minute. A Richter 5 quake every six hours, a major quake every 3 weeks. A quake as destructive as the one in Pakistan every 8 months. It’s nothing new, it’s right on schedule.



At any moment there are 1,500 electrical storms on the planet. A tornado touches down every six hours. We have ninety hurricanes a year, or one every four days. Again, right on schedule. Violent, disruptive, chaotic activity is a constant feature of our globe.



Is this the end of the world? No: this *is* the world.



It’s time we knew it."



In other words; let's calm down and make sure there really *is* a problem, and, if so, what's *really* causing it before we start throwing vast amounts of money at it.



:::edit:::



Ooops! Looks as though I broke the bank! I responded to disgracedfish again, but all the text in my answer disappeared! I'll post an answer via another user below to respond to him.

Answer 12

I don't think people are so MAD that you will start believing on the answers in Yahoo answers on such important topics. be relaxed. Fortunately all human have Brains.

Answer 13

hi don't claim to be an expert ..its just my opinion or knowledge on my outlook on life if its wrong sorry if its right ..great but to err is human and to be right Devin its your choice .....as is everyone Else's choice if they cant see the warning signs geese hope they do but ....!!!free will a and all that education education ... you do or you don't .......big brother I'm not

Answer 14

This site could do with a bit more monitoring. We also get too many religious rants. Good luck!

Answer 15

i think global warming is great

warmer winters and hotter sumers in the uk

just what we need

Answer 16

FREEDOM of speech dude. Unfortunately that also means d1ckheads have their say too.



xxB

Answer 17

Global warming is a myth dear boy.

Answer 18

i`m still lost

Answer 19

and that was a question yes !!!!! not an opinion???????