BAUT Global Warming Discussion Policy

[pzkpfw]

Thread closed to provide some "space". It may well be re-opened, in a few minutes or in a day.

Either way: to provide some "control" of (A)GW threads, a line had to be drawn in the sand on what was "Mainstream" and what was "ATM".

Arguing the toss on that "M" v. "ATM" decision isn't going to get us anywhere. Please just try to follow the rules.

[pzkpfw]

OK. Open again.

Reminder: this thread is not the place to argue for or against GW or AGW or whatever, even under the guise of being a discussion of the new rules.

The intent of the rulings in post 1 of this thread should be clear enough for anyone to get on with.

[korjik]

A very sensible decision. It´s going to be instructive to hear the AGW denialists arguments on the ATM forum.

It is also going to be interesting to see GW's blind supporters make any nonsensical comment they want and be able to get away with it because they are 'mainstream'.

It will also be interesting to see GW supporters make inflammatory and insulting comments without having to back them up also.....

[Swift]

It is also going to be interesting to see GW's blind supporters make any nonsensical comment they want and be able to get away with it because they are 'mainstream'.

It will also be interesting to see GW supporters make inflammatory and insulting comments without having to back them up also.....

Nonsensical is in the eye of the beholder.

And I assume by "GW's blind supporters", you mean as opposed to GW supporters who, for example, have carefully studied the issue and have come to a reasoned conclusion about it. Because if you were referring to all GW supporters that way, one might take that comment as inflammatory and insulting, and we all know that insulting is not tolerated on BAUT, for any topic, and on any side of that topic.

[korjik]

We have generally had a broad definition of "space and astronomy", since we allow a lot of physics threads in ATM, but we should take a formal rewording of that under advisement.


I would not use the term "the skeptic side". But yes, it does crack down on people who do not believe in Global Warming (GW) or who not believe humans are largely responsible for it (AGW). GW and AGW are the mainstream scientific positions. Just like other areas of science, those who advocate positions opposed to mainstream science must present their ideas in ATM.

And whether something is presented in S&T (Science & Technology) or ATM, it will always be kept civil on BAUT.

So if I see Ronald Brak yet again say that all skeptics dont believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and then correct him again, I am ATM and have to prove it, and he dosent?

About the only consensus on GW here has been that no one here is expert enough to make an informed opinion. Making it so that the skeptics have to face the banhammer when the supporters dont isnt a very good choice IMHO. We had peace while the subject was off limits, and this thread hasnt even gone 2 pages without being locked.

[korjik]

Are GW threads that go ATM going to get thrown into ATM?

[Swift]

Are GW threads that go ATM going to get thrown into ATM?

It will depend on the exact circumstances, but that is an option. Same as a General Relativity thread that goes ATM, for example.

[Spoons]

And I assume by "GW's blind supporters", you mean as opposed to GW supporters who, for example, have carefully studied the issue and have come to a reasoned conclusion about it. Because if you were referring to all GW supporters that way, one might take that comment as inflammatory and insulting, and we all know that insulting is not tolerated on BAUT, for any topic, and on any side of that topic.

Just wanted to point out that in referencing groups in two different terms it appears to me that korjik has made a clear distinction between two different groups. Not intending to be smart or anything - I'd only fall flat on my face anyway.

[Van Rijn]

Nonsensical is in the eye of the beholder.

And I assume by "GW's blind supporters", you mean as opposed to GW supporters who, for example, have carefully studied the issue and have come to a reasoned conclusion about it. Because if you were referring to all GW supporters that way, one might take that comment as inflammatory and insulting, and we all know that insulting is not tolerated on BAUT, for any topic, and on any side of that topic.

It seems to me that there are people with different positions on the subject that do an absolutely wonderful job of pushing each others' buttons. They might not always intend insult, but they manage it pretty often. And depending on the position of the moderators, the insults may not be obvious to them either.

Frankly, I think this subject would have been better off left off limits for BAUT. The tension level on this thread seems to support that.

[Canis Lupus]

About the only consensus on GW here has been that no one here is expert enough to make an informed opinion.

Delete the word "here" and what you have is really the mainstream position, which can be backed up solidly with peer reviewed papers. I won't quote them here, it not being a thread to argue the toss. Whatever format BAUT devises for discussion, the main thing is that whatever is proposed one way or another can be challenged with reason and evidence, even if that is to point to the lack of reason and evidence. Now that the rules are in place, I suppose it is up to some brave soul to either start a thread or re-open an existing closed one and in doing so take away any temptation to argue the toss in this thread, however indirectly that may be done?

Regards.

[nauthiz]

. . .if people make it impossible to enforce this in a civil manner, that making it a forbidden topic will be the fall back position.

We might as well start the betting pool now. I'll open it by placing my money on 30 days.

[tusenfem]

Apparently, it is not even possible to discuss about the possibility of opening BAUT again for discussion on global warming or climat change or whatever you want to call it. Sort of similar like the hubbus that started up when we decided to close all (A)GW/CC discussions here on BAUT. I am very disappointed here and would have expected a little more conciliatory stance from most of the involved persons, based on the "anger" that was there when the topic was temporarily blocked.

For myself, I hope that nobody is brave enough to open a thread either in S&T or in ATM, so I don't have to bother to look through them and look at all the reports that will come rolling in.

[jlhredshift]

Apparently, it is not even possible to discuss about the possibility of opening BAUT again for discussion on global warming or climat change or whatever you want to call it. Sort of similar like the hubbus that started up when we decided to close all (A)GW/CC discussions here on BAUT. I am very disappointed here and would have expected a little more conciliatory stance from most of the involved persons, based on the "anger" that was there when the topic was temporarily blocked.

For myself, I hope that nobody is brave enough to open a thread either in S&T or in ATM, so I don't have to bother to look through them and look at all the reports that will come rolling in.

Joshua (the computer) said; "The only winning move, is not to play."

[nauthiz]

Sorry, I suppose I should be more open and less sarcastic. Let me try that again:

Even without the difficulties in this thread thus far, I'm very pessimistic about this plan. The last attempt at getting the AGW threads under control before they were closed was to try to enforce a very straightforward, clear-cut rule: posters could only cite scientific sources in support of their statements; blogs, newspapers, and the like were not allowed. As I see it, the threads were closed because this didn't work; a lot of it just turned into arguing over minutia about what does and does not count as a scientific source, including much hassling of the mods.

ATM rules also impose an evidentiary standard, but to my thinking it's a somewhat more nebulous one and is therefore open to more toying around. On top of that, it actively invites testing the boundaries: The rules break the people taking part into the conversation into two groups, and imposes very different standards on the two of them. The one with the tighter standards is naturally going to try to push the rules in an effort to try and level the playing field, and the one with the looser standards is naturally going to push back in an effort to secure their advantage. This is inevitable; even if politics is banned from the forum it's still a politically charged issue and I can say from experience that for many of us it can become virtually impossible to keep a level head and remember to play fair in these discussions.

So it seems to me that what is happening is that we've got a situation where people were playing games with the rules, and it's being replaced with a situation where the rules are more gameable and there's more incentive to try and play with them.

That might be fine if BAUT's leadership has a desire to keep the discussion open for other reasons and accepts the likelihood of continued acrimony as the price of pursuing those goals. But I'm very pessimistic about the likelihood that there's any way to keep a lid on the AGW arguments other than simply banning the topic.

[korjik]

Nonsensical is in the eye of the beholder.

And I assume by "GW's blind supporters", you mean as opposed to GW supporters who, for example, have carefully studied the issue and have come to a reasoned conclusion about it. Because if you were referring to all GW supporters that way, one might take that comment as inflammatory and insulting, and we all know that insulting is not tolerated on BAUT, for any topic, and on any side of that topic.

Technically, I mean those who havent got the scientific background to understand the science fully. Probably wide enough a group to be an infraction since I pretty much include everyone here in that group. In my defence, I also include most of the skeptics here as 'blind skeptics' up to and including myself. It is why I have been a supporter of banning the topic. It is too inflammatory without having some experts who can address the science from first principles.

[Paracelsus]

There's not going to be a civil discussion anyway, as the GW-skeptics have been given too much free rein for far too long to promulgate their views without being cracked down on.

Don't get me wrong, I truly admire the Mods and the Admins for doing the right thing here, but I fear that the resultant firestorm, as evidenced on this thread, will quickly derail their good intentions and lead to an outright ban. There are just too many members of the anti-AGW crowd on this site (in fact, they constitute the majority of posters, at least from the US), this is a very emotional topic, and I've never been impressed with the debating skills of the majority of the posters here, particularly when discussing an emotionally-charged topic. That actual data always seem to be tossed out the window in favor of the carge 'nobody knows, and neither do you', unsupported by any data to back it up, or banal nitpicking of the infamous hockey stick curve or flaws in the 2007 IPCC report while ignoring what the rest of the data say. The scientific consensus on AGW was the result of a consideration of all of the data, not just the 'hockey stick'. A discussion of AGW should similarly consider ALL OF THE DATA. Nitpicking on trivial points is something creationists do all the time to try and prove Evolution to be false, BTW. It's a bad way to analyze data and also an ineffective debating tactic. I would advise the AGW-skeptic crowd to try another tack.

But they won't, of course, or most won't. At least the AGW flame wars will be confined to the ATM forum, though, which will be a relief.


Good luck with it, though. i'll be watching to see how it turns out.

[Gillianren]

Paracelsus, may I suggest that many of us do accept the science but do not feel confident in arguing in favour of it?

[Paracelsus]

Paracelsus, may I suggest that many of us do accept the science but do not feel confident in arguing in favour of it?

I was referring to members who specifically argue against AGW, not those who choose not to argue either way. There is nothing invalid about the statement 'I don't know enough to say for certain', as one is only stating the extent of one's own expertise on the subject. However, it is different thing to say 'Nobody knows for certain'; that statement refers to the scientific consensus on a topic, not just to one's own knowledge base. I was referring to the latter type of statement, not the former, in my post.

[Swift]

Might I suggest that we all just drop hypothetical speculations about what the "other side" is going to do in response to these new rules? As far as I can tell, all it is doing is inflaming passions.

Maybe the best thing is just to see how it goes. At least we'll then have some actual data to argue over. And if these rules don't work out, for whatever reason, we'll just revisit them in the future.

On the remote chance that someone has something else that they need to post in this thread, I'll leave it open, at least for the moment.

[kleindoofy]

... GW-skeptics ...

Please help me on the definition of who is a skeptic.

Is that someone who is skeptical towards the maintream scientific data? I.e. an anti-(A)GW believer? Or is it the other way around, i.e. someone who is skeptical towards, errr, whatever?

...members of the anti-AGW crowd on this site (in fact, they constitute the majority of posters ...

As Gillian posted and I believe you confirmed, they constitute the majority of posters in (A)GW orientated threads. Whether or not they constitute the majority of posters on BAUT as a whole remains to be seen.

... at least from the US ...

I think that's the main point. Unless I'm terribly mistaken, active, widespread, and almost missionary style anti-(A)GW is more or less restricted to the US and seems to be instrinsically intertwined with US partisan politics. For many outside looking in, it's a pretty bizarre situation.

[neilzero]

I may be strange, but I don't like to read closed threads. Can the management provide a list of open threads (all topics) in ATM? Nearly all ATM threads seem to be closed. I was planning to discuss greenhouse warming in ATM, to reduce the probability of BAUT rule violation. The moderator response to my thread in ATM infers that we are not free to discus greenhouse warming in ATM or anywhere on BAUT I thought I was quite specific, but perhaps too humble, about my objections to mainstream greenhouse warming and tactfully inferred several examples of why. Am I being unreasonable? Neil

[slang]

I may be strange

If that is true, you're a sockpuppet! Ban!!!!!!111

Can the management provide a list of open threads (all topics) in ATM?

All threads in the ATM forum are closed automatically after 30 days. So, the closest you can get is to go to advanced search, pick a date 30 days ago, and search for newer. Or browse the forum by page, you won't have to go far until you hit the 30 day limit.

I was planning to discuss greenhouse warming in ATM

The way the ATM forum rules are set up, IMHO it's probably best to start your own thread, defending your own position, rather than tacking on to some already existing ATM thread.

[pzkpfw]

I may be strange, but I don't like to read closed threads. Can the management provide a list of open threads (all topics) in ATM? Nearly all ATM threads seem to be closed. I was planning to discuss greenhouse warming in ATM, to reduce the probability of BAUT rule violation. The moderator response to my thread in ATM infers that we are not free to discus greenhouse warming in ATM or anywhere on BAUT I thought I was quite specific, but perhaps too humble, about my objections to mainstream greenhouse warming and tactfully inferred several examples of why. Am I being unreasonable? Neil

(The closing of ATM threads used to be automatic, now we do it manually. Thus the "30 days" can now be 30 + a day or two.)

The whole point* of this thread is that we learned that (A)GW threads needed some "control" so we put a stake in the ground on what we'd consider "mainstream" at BAUT (see post #1) and asked that threads counter to that mainsream go in the ATM sub-forum.

(* actually it's also demonstrated quite well by the posts in this thread, too.)

That means those threads must abide by the ATM sub-forum rules. If you start a thread in ATM, you are proposing a non-mainstream view, and you will be expected to defend that view.

Edit: Mainstream discussion can occur as for any topic. But as with any topic, non-mainstream comments will be moderated (e.g. moved to ATM, earn infractions, ...).

[Canis Lupus]

I think that's the main point. Unless I'm terribly mistaken, active, widespread, and almost missionary style anti-(A)GW is more or less restricted to the US and seems to be instrinsically intertwined with US partisan politics. For many outside looking in, it's a pretty bizarre situation.

You will find Australia similar although it is not political at first instance, but the division in thinking has inevitably lead to drastic political repercussions. It might have something to do with Pilmer being such an outspoken critic and also being Australian. The Murdoch press (News Ltd) certainly see it as a live issue and does not exclude the other viewpoint on the basis of any alleged consensus, unlike the ABC and Fairfax media tend to. So, it isn't just the US.

[korjik]

I was referring to members who specifically argue against AGW, not those who choose not to argue either way. There is nothing invalid about the statement 'I don't know enough to say for certain', as one is only stating the extent of one's own expertise on the subject. However, it is different thing to say 'Nobody knows for certain'; that statement refers to the scientific consensus on a topic, not just to one's own knowledge base. I was referring to the latter type of statement, not the former, in my post.

And this is an example of the corruption of science so prevalent to GW debates. I dont know the specific data involved, but I do know what data is required to make large scale climate predictions. I can also figure out if that data exists. If in my professional opinion that data does not exist, then I can make a professional judgement that nobody can know for certain simply because without the data, nobody can know for certain. My concern is that climate change is a case of garbage in, and asking for proof that the basis for a theory is sound is good science.

This same situation also applies to string/brane/m- theory. There is no experimental data to backup the theory, so all the theories are in the nobody knows for certain category.

The difference is that with GW, pointing out my concerns gets either completely ignored or I get attacked personally. Both have happened to me, and both have happened to me here. It is why I became a big supporter of banning the topic here, and why I rarely participate in GW discussions anymore.

You also bring up consensus. In science, consensus is a poison. It may be helpful sometimes, by allowing a group of scientists to move past a point that cannot be proven to fully develop a theory so that it can be later proven, but to rely on consensus to call a science proven is a perversion of what science is. Consensus does not prove, experiment does. Anytime someone brings up consensus, they are wrong. They are brining up a straw-man, not doing science.

[korjik]

Please help me on the definition of who is a skeptic.

Is that someone who is skeptical towards the maintream scientific data? I.e. an anti-(A)GW believer? Or is it the other way around, i.e. someone who is skeptical towards, errr, whatever?


As Gillian posted and I believe you confirmed, they constitute the majority of posters in (A)GW orientated threads. Whether or not they constitute the majority of posters on BAUT as a whole remains to be seen.


I think that's the main point. Unless I'm terribly mistaken, active, widespread, and almost missionary style anti-(A)GW is more or less restricted to the US and seems to be instrinsically intertwined with US partisan politics. For many outside looking in, it's a pretty bizarre situation.

There are those who find the missionary style pro-GW to be just as linked to partisan politics and find it just as bizarre.

Which is really just another reason to ban the topic

[Gillianren]

You also bring up consensus. In science, consensus is a poison. It may be helpful sometimes, by allowing a group of scientists to move past a point that cannot be proven to fully develop a theory so that it can be later proven, but to rely on consensus to call a science proven is a perversion of what science is. Consensus does not prove, experiment does. Anytime someone brings up consensus, they are wrong. They are brining up a straw-man, not doing science.

Did you read the lengthy discussion on the subject? Consensus is usually formed by experimentation. It's not as though everyone wakes up one morning and says, "Of course! Evolution!"

[Argos]

You will find Australia similar although it is not political at first instance, but the division in thinking has inevitably lead to drastic political repercussions. It might have something to do with Pilmer being such an outspoken critic and also being Australian. The Murdoch press (News Ltd) certainly see it as a live issue and does not exclude the other viewpoint on the basis of any alleged consensus, unlike the ABC and Fairfax media tend to. So, it isn't just the US.

It´s interesting that, in Brazil, few people dispute AGW. You could say it is unanimously accepted.

[Paracelsus]

And this is an example of the corruption of science so prevalent to GW debates. I dont know the specific data involved, but I do know what data is required to make large scale climate predictions. I can also figure out if that data exists. If in my professional opinion that data does not exist, then I can make a professional judgement that nobody can know for certain simply because without the data, nobody can know for certain. My concern is that climate change is a case of garbage in, and asking for proof that the basis for a theory is sound is good science.

This same situation also applies to string/brane/m- theory. There is no experimental data to backup the theory, so all the theories are in the nobody knows for certain category.

The difference is that with GW, pointing out my concerns gets either completely ignored or I get attacked personally. Both have happened to me, and both have happened to me here. It is why I became a big supporter of banning the topic here, and why I rarely participate in GW discussions anymore.

You also bring up consensus. In science, consensus is a poison. It may be helpful sometimes, by allowing a group of scientists to move past a point that cannot be proven to fully develop a theory so that it can be later proven, but to rely on consensus to call a science proven is a perversion of what science is. Consensus does not prove, experiment does. Anytime someone brings up consensus, they are wrong. They are brining up a straw-man, not doing science.

I have no idea how to reply to this bizarre idea that consensus is somehow poisonous. If so then the widespread consensus that exists regarding the Big Bang, Evolution, Relativity, and quantum mechanics are all some variety of thought control. General scientific consensus is arrived at by careful, balanced examination of the available data and a weight-of-the-evidence comparison of how well a given theory explains the available data. AGW is the best theory we have to explain the available data on the rapid warming of the climate, which is why it is the consensus theory in the field of climatology.

As to my reliance upon your claims of expertise versus the collective judgement of the worldwide community of climate science experts, you may rely on your own opinion, but I have no idea who you are or why I should simply take your word over the collective opinion of literally thousands of climate experts, whose work is publicly-available and has been peer-reviewed, analyzed, and re-analyzed. You, in contrast, have never provided any data to back up your assertions or provided a detailed, balanced critique of the literature on this issue. In the absence of these, when given a choice of whose scientific opinion to trust, I choose the global consensus. If you wish people to take your anti-AGW views seriously, it would be helpful to provide some data to balance your dicta.

No offense.

[Kaptain K]

It's amazing! What should have been a simple easy to understand statement of board policy with respect to discussion of global warming has turned into a major "nitpick fest" in its own right! Come on folks, get a grip.