A question: why anything about global warming gets downvoted, even popularly readable explanation of the fairly mainstream scientific consensus?
I question the generalisation “Of the comments by User:Dmytry that have been downvoted recently some of them have been about global warming” --> “All discussion of global warming gets downvoted”. In fact, the claim can be trivially refuted by finding discussion relating to global warming that is not downvoted. As of the time of this comment one can find examples of comments discussing global warming that are upvoted or neutral by following the link to the Dmytry’s comment page, finding the heavily downvoted comments about global warming and then following links to the (currently upvoted) parent and children comments.
Once again, not all instances of people downvoting are part of a conspiracy. Sometimes it just means people disagree with you or object to your style.
As for whether the downvoted comments in question are, in fact, “popularly readable explanation of the fairly mainstream scientific consensus”—I have no idea. I have very little interest in the subject and have not followed the conversation closely. Someone else would have to give their evaluation.
As far as I’m concerned the global warming is a known problem with known insurmountable political (cooperation) problems preventing us from taking the drastic measures needed to solve it.
Nah, I did a search and there’s generally massive downvoting of discussions on AGW. No need to start personal attacks in public. It’s enough to tell me to f* off in private. edit: Also, I don’t care about having a big rating number, okay? I see the votes, as representative of likes/dislikes, a sort of one-bit commentary. Now, when the one-bit commentary is overwhelmingly negative while the more than one bit commentary, is not so, that leaves me wondering why there is such a disparity between two different types of commentary.
I question the generalisation “Of the comments by User:Dmytry that have been downvoted recently some of them have been about global warming” --> “All discussion of global warming gets downvoted”. In fact, the claim can be trivially refuted by finding discussion relating to global warming that is not downvoted. As of the time of this comment one can find examples of comments discussing global warming that are upvoted or neutral by following the link to the Dmytry’s comment page, finding the heavily downvoted comments about global warming and then following links to the (currently upvoted) parent and children comments.
Once again, not all instances of people downvoting are part of a conspiracy. Sometimes it just means people disagree with you or object to your style.
As for whether the downvoted comments in question are, in fact, “popularly readable explanation of the fairly mainstream scientific consensus”—I have no idea. I have very little interest in the subject and have not followed the conversation closely. Someone else would have to give their evaluation.
As far as I’m concerned the global warming is a known problem with known insurmountable political (cooperation) problems preventing us from taking the drastic measures needed to solve it.
Nah, I did a search and there’s generally massive downvoting of discussions on AGW. No need to start personal attacks in public. It’s enough to tell me to f* off in private. edit: Also, I don’t care about having a big rating number, okay? I see the votes, as representative of likes/dislikes, a sort of one-bit commentary. Now, when the one-bit commentary is overwhelmingly negative while the more than one bit commentary, is not so, that leaves me wondering why there is such a disparity between two different types of commentary.