BAUT Global Warming Discussion Policy

[Moose]

I will remind people that this thread is not an acceptable place for side discussions about GW, AGW, the merits (or lack) thereof, nor the politics of consensus. Remember folks, only meta-discussion in About BAUT.

Factual (and speculative) discussions (within the established rules) about GW and AGW belong in S&T. Anti-AGW proposals (and evidence for these proposals) belong in ATM. Discussion about what constitutes valid consensus in general probably belongs in OTB (and may be an interesting discussion in its own right if folks can keep it free from heat and specifics).

Either way, knock off the acrimony.

[Argos]

Sorry about that, chief.

[aastrotech]

It's kind of funny, and it may seem a little pedantic but; the GW rule doesn't define what GW AGW is except that it is happening.

From a "scientific method" definition point of view. i.e. what collection of data gathered through what observation and experimentation results in the formulation and testing of what hypotheses as explanations of what phenomena and what of these are repeatable in order to dependably, accurately, precicely or absolutely predict what future results?

In terms of this rule what is the canon of science covering GW AGW?

I mean the differences between, for instance, geocentrism and heliocentrism with heliocentrism as mainstream are well and widely understood but they have been around for a while. GW AGW is new and it might be good to define the mainstream science somewhere.

[Robert Tulip]

Congratulations to the moderators for a sensible policy. Anthropogenic Global Warming from CO2 is mainstream science. Undue skepticism and denial are outside the mainstream. Denialists have enough platforms elsewhere to attack the scientific consensus without being able to do so on mainstream science threads. The terms of debate should shift from if to how we should address climate change.

[aastrotech]

I realize I didn't define some terms in my previous post.

"dependably, accurately, precicely or absolutely."

Dependably: Better than 50% reliability= better than chance.

Accurately: Better than 90% reliability=whithin 1/10.

Precicely: Better than 99% reliability = <+/_ .010.

I'll add one you are probably not familiar with.*

Precision grind: Better than 99.9% reliability= <+/_ .001.

I could add another.*

Polished: Better than 99.99% reliability=<+/- .0001.

Absolutely: 100% reliability= Self explanitory.

*Presumably "calling the toss (of a coin?)" means that BAUT (mods) are of the opinion that "the mainstream" on this issue is accurate to better than chance.

[pzkpfw]

Stop playing games aastrotech.

You've participated in AGW and GW threads. You've made posts in this thread. You've made posts in the current ATM thread on this overall topic. You know very well what the topic is.

What you are attempting to do is argue the point by stealth.

The rulings have been made (see post #1 of this thread). Live with them.

[mugaliens]

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

Lol! I guess we're just a nation of skeptics. We're certainly a nation of independant thinkers. Rarely in my travels around the world have I encountered such widespread dissent on various topics germane to a nations populace as I have here in the good 'ole, USA. Then again, as a global melting pot we're hardly a homogeneous nation. Disagreement and dissent, even well-informed, rational, reasonable, and scientific dissent, is to be expected.

ToSeek wrote, "To discuss this policy, go here." Thank you for the invitation, and my take on the policy is that it's perfectly rational and reasonable.

Thus, I am in full consent with the policy. Some, however, are not, and have expressed their dissent. The very concept of "discussion" involves consent, dissent, and indifference, along with the option of substantiating reasons as to why. Why is it then that consent and indifference have been allowed in this thread with impunity while dissent, even reasonable, rational dissent, have been strongly discouraged?

People were invited to discuss the policy, by an admin, no less. Dissent is, by defination, part of that discussion, as one-sided discussions are worthless - they negate any rational purpose of a discussion. Sure, gathering in a circle and patting one another on the back might feel good, but that's not a discussion, and science isn't about feeling - it's about fact.

Furthermore, as ToSeek included the consensus upon which the policy is based into the policy itself, I think Aastrotech's post is dead-on.

Aastrotech mentions "consensus" falls somewhere between Dependably (>50%) and Polished (Better than 99.99% reliability=<+/- .0001), inclusive. Let's chill out for a minute and examine the consensus surrounding ice (there's a point to this - please bear with me): The scientific consensus is that water has 15 known crystalline phases. Few would dispute this. But does that mean than there are only 15 crystalline phases? By no means! There are simply 15 known crystaline phases of water. Thus, the scientific consensus on the numbrer of crystalline phases of water doesn't even meet Aastrotech's Dependability criteria of >50% chance. Indeed, the most recent form, ice XV, was first created less than a year ago, and it's properties were significantly different than predicted, as it was antiferroelectric instead of the predicted ferroelectric.

There is no scientific consensus that there are only 15 crystalline phases of water - just that there are 15 known crystalline phases of water. The point is that any discussion of policy based on, i.e. founded on a consensus inherently invites a discussion of the consensus upon which it is founded. If you don't want the consensus discussed, your best bet would be to either withdraw the invitation altogether (i.e. close the thread), or remove any mention of consensus from the policy and say it's "just because."

It's perfectly reasonable for BAUT to establish a policy on the discussion of both GW and AGW. Whatever that policy is, it matters not what the reason is, even if that reason is as simple as "because we want to" or even "just because." Even no reason is acceptable. A simple policy statement without any reason given other than "This is BAUT's policy" is acceptable.

After all, this is a message forum, not a scientific board of inquiry!

What is not reasonable, and is indeed quite irrational, is to open the message thread to discussion then prohibit the dissent leg of the discussion triad.

Back to the policy:

1. Global warming is occurring and is Mainstream

This isn't policy. It's a statement of belief that reflects current scientific consensus.

anti-GW belongs in ATM.

This is policy, and is perfectly rational and reasonable.

2. Human activities (AGW) are a major contributor to GW

This isn't policy. It's a statement of belief that reflects current scientific consensus.

; the specific contributors and their level of contribution may be discussed, but anti-AGW belongs in ATM.

This is policy, and is perfectly rational and reasonable.

3. There are other contributors besides AGW

This isn't policy. It's a statement of belief that reflects current scientific consensus.

...these may be discussed.

This is policy, and is perfectly rational and reasonable.

Of the three non-policy points contained in ToSeek's invitation to discuss, I cannot comment as the mods have made it abundantly clear they're not acceptable for discussion in this thread. Thus, as ToSeek invited us to discuss policy, and those points are verboten in this thread, they're cannot be policy.

As for the policy of limiting the discussion of anti-GW and anti-AGW to ATM while allowing the discussion of specific contributors to AGW and their level of contribution as well as other contributions besides AGW, I say again: This policy is perfectly rational and reasonable.

To remove the consensus quagmire and simply restate the policy in policy-pure terms, I would restate the policy ToSeek directed this way:

1. All discussions of anti-GW and anti-AGW will be confined to the ATM section.

2. You may discuss both the specific contributors to AGW and their level of contribution, as well as other GW contributors, in the appropriate section(s).

Note: It might help to limit all GW and AGW discussions to a single section, such as Science and Technology, rather than mentioning OTB, as both anti-GW and anti-AGW are clearly ATM while both GW and AGW contributors are clearly science. Since all approaches clearly fall into either the ATM or Science and Technology section classifications, let's keep them there rather than muddying the waters with other sections.

[HenrikOlsen]

Lol! I guess we're just a nation of skeptics. We're certainly a nation of independant thinkers.

Or, to pose an alternative hypothesis. You're a nation of people willing to ignore evidence in favor of blindly following the propaganda put forth by unscrupulous people with various agendas and large advertisement budgets.

[pzkpfw]

...and people wonder why we have trouble with (A)GW threads and needed to put some rules in place? We can't even discuss the rules without it turning into a discussion of the topic. (And getting heated on both sides).

I'm closing the thread again.

Make a report if you have something you need to add.