Global Warming Debate Tracker

[Mike Peregrine]

This is not a global warming thread. This is a thread about global warming threads. I was just curious how much time everyone pours into their posts and debating this particular issue in Stormtrack and whether the time is justified in altering the ideas of readers. Here are a few of the thread results (we can use this list as our comprehensive global warming library):

Dr. Gray Slams Gore
89 (and counting) Total Posts covering 9 pages

Interesting article about global warming. Thoughts?
43 Total Posts covering 5 pages

NASA predicts more severe storms with global warming
43 Total Posts covering 5 pages

This Would Be Embarrasing
16 Total Posts covering 2 pages

nasa administrator on global warming...
15 Total Posts covering 2 pages

Global Warming
46 Total Posts covering 5 pages

Global Warming Swindle?
16 Total Posts covering 2 pages

Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
30 Total Posts covering 3 pages

UK Met Office maps of 2070-2100 weather
31 Total Posts covering 4 pages

Global Warming Article in Time
19 Total Posts covering 2 pages

Something Has Gone Wrong with the Global Weather Pattern
63 Total Posts covering 7 pages

Global Warming Goes to Court
15 Total Posts covering 2 pages

The average number of posts per thread on global warming is 35.5. Most discussions die out before hitting 50 replies, but the Dr. Gray Slams Gore thread above is the current reigning champion with 89 total posts (and counting every minute).

So my question is - how many of you have actually changed your opinion and now think differently about global warming because of what you have read in these threads?

 

[fplowman]

Good point Mike. Point taken.

 

[David Drummond]

It's like religion and politics. Both sides beat each other over the head with their facts, views and opinions, and in the end neither side has changed their beliefs.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

By the way - if you did change your mind, please tell us what it was that swayed you to the other side of the issue, and which thread in particular -

 

[Dan Robinson]

The poll needs another option along the lines of 'I'm open to changing my views but have not been convinced yet"

 

[Mike Peregrine]

I knew I'd leave one out ... is there a way to add a poll question after one has been generated? - If not, and that's the choice a person wants, just post it in here ...

I'm not taking any sides or condemning the process, but was just really curious to see the results - -

 

[David Drummond]

I added it for you. I think that can only be changed by an admin.

 

[David Wolfson]

I appreciate and pay attention to the posts that provide new information and links. It's not a binomial issue and informed discussions do change my views.

 

[Dick McGowan]

LOL! I was thinking the same thing the other day about these threads. I am for the side that creates more tornadoes/supercells...which way should I vote for? (Don't answer this, I kid)

 

[Brian Emfinger]

Well hopefully those who clicked on "No - I will never change" would have clicked on "I'm open to changing my views but have not been convinced yet" - if it had been available. In this situation and most all situations about anything it is a extremely bad way to live to go by that rule of NO I WILL NEVER CHANGE NO MATTER WHAT. Most of the time I would guess it would follow whether you were right or wrong and being wrong some people would rather just stay wrong and not admit it than change their mind.

OH and DMcG...Its not a problem unless moving to Canada is

 

[Tarmo Tanilsoo]

Actually my views were changed on 23 March 2007 in EMHI during a weather conference which told the audience about possible cycles of global warming and cooling.

 

[Kevin Scharfenberg]

One interesting thing about all these threads is where a lot of people choose to collect their information to form their opinions. I see a lot of people using blog comments, youtube, politicians, talk show hosts, their own "gut", meteorologists who don't study climate change, etc. Since it's ultimately a science topic, whenever I can't read the journals themselves I use realclimate.org as a starting point because it is run by several scientists who actually work on these issues every day and have a long history of peer-reviewed publications.

The other fascinating thing is a lot of people who say "there isn't enough proof" or "we need 100% confidence" will use as their "proof" the most off-the-wall ideas, which have not been subject to the rigor of peer review nor acheived repeated results at independent institutions, and have usually been repeatedly debunked.

The last amazing thing is the number of people saying they are debating the "science" who don't even know the definition of the word "theory" or probability analysis.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I think there is an attitude problem on both sides. The blanket condescending write-offs of people who don't agree with one side or the other doesn't help in encouraging a healthy discussion. Again, I see this problem on both sides of the argument.

 

[Benjamin Smith]

I voted for I would change my mind, but haven't been convinced yet. It's such a shame the Dr. Grey slams Al Gore thread has turned into political jabs. In all actuality I can't believe it hasn't been locked yet. The last three pages are nothing but a flame war.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

I voted for being open minded, but I haven't changed my opinion yet. I really like the global warming threads, which is obvious because I'm guilty of starting several of them. We have to have something to talk about in the off season. I don't like them so much for the arguing, but I really enjoy getting to read the opinions and arguments of other people. I've always been a firm believer in the notion that if you believe you're right you should welcome scrutiny and have no problem defending yourself. I don't know much about global warming and I like to hear the people that do know a lot on the topic comment on it. I guess it's a quick way to get information on the topic, like reading cliffnotes instead of the actual book. I'm most interested in the opposing views, even Kevin's lol. There are a lot of smart people on stormtrack and it's pretty interesting IMO to watch some people argue their feelings back and forth on global warming. I think a lot of people don't like it simply because they think anything resembling arguing is a bad thing. I totally disagree. I think a healthy argument is a good thing so long as you don't stray into personal attacks. I really wish they still allowed political discussions on here. I thought it was absolutely ridiculous to ban politics because some people didn't like the threads. If you don't like it, don't read it, but don't take away my right to read it while you're at it. I think it's that whole don't disturb the herd mentality that some of these people have. Some of the guys I've come to like and respect the most on ST are guys that I used to have regular political arguments with on ST. David Wolfson being one. At least I respected him until I bumped into him drunk and half naked on his virtual chase near Nickerson, Kansas. The guy could barely stand up, let alone drive a car. I saw him throw virtual beer cans out the window of his virtual car on at least three different occasions (one of which was at my windshield), but that's a whole nother story. That was joke in case you aren't familiar with David's virtual chases.