View Poll Results: Global warming threads on BAUT should be closed

Voters
65. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    31 47.69%
  • no, just stop moderation and let chaos reign

    10 15.38%
  • no, but put in very strict moderation

    24 36.92%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 147

Thread: Global warming threads should be closed on BAUT

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,580

    Global warming threads should be closed on BAUT

    After doing a (maybe not good enough) lot of moderation in the AGW thread(s) it seems that the turn around time of comments contra/pro AGW is about half a year.

    Also, various participants in the thread are trying to find ways to circumvent my demand for only peer reviewed papers be used as support for claims made in the thread (~4 weeks abo), then another warning that blogs will no longer be allowed (there are still 1 or 2 infractions I have to give in the AGW thread, but is has been a bit busy the last days) we get links to post that link to blogs, or links to TV stations (which are indeed not blogs).

    Then there is the snarkyness of the various opponents in the thread, which stops for about 1 page at the max. Maybe this is because of too lax moderation?

    I don't want the AGW threads to become a police state on BAUT, but I have the bad feeling that that is the only way we can have an exchange of viewpoints. THAT TAKES WAY TOO MUCH TIME FOR THE MODERATION TEAM.

    Naturally, there are various solutions to this "problem:"

    1. We can just close the threads and forbid any discussion on the topic, and let those that want to discuss go to JREF (where the rules are much more loose than on BAUT) or some other board.
    2. We could just leave the thread open and not moderate at all anymore, put it in its own little corner of the board and let chaos reign
    3. We could start anew, with very strickt rules on behaviour, allowed references and language.


    Actually, I don't care anymore for this thread and most definitely don't care for option #3, I have a life and a job too.

    Therefore, make your choice and give your opinion here in this thread (NO DISCUSSION ONLY YOUR ARGUED OPINION).
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,721
    I have been for banning GW threads for a few years now. Technically, I have been for either banning GW threads or forcing everyone to cite from sources, but it seems that citing wont work.

    Like Tusenfem said, GW threads have just been going in circles for years. If we arent going to let ATMers and CTers have infinite threads that just go around in circles, then I dont see that GW threads should be allowed to.

    I am not comparing either side of GW threads to ATMers or CTers. I have stated here several times that I dont think anyone here has the expertise to make a strong arguement either way, so that the conversation can move forward.

    This forum is a great place, and one of the reasons is that people are forced to act like adults or they are asked to leave. The mods and admins spend alot of their own free time making sure that this forum stays nice, and I dont see that a discussion that only takes up their time and gets people banned is worth their time when that discussion hasnt had any progress in years.

    Ban it, it is too incendiary topic for here.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    489
    My strategy has been not to read those threads. So it doesn't really affect me.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,166
    I voted yes, but at a minnimum I think these threads should follow the 30 day rule, and the Locked immediately due to not providing evidence (or peer reviewed citations).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,310
    I've given up on GW discussions for the most part. Past exchanges quickly showed me what the most common arguments and counterarguments were, and where the "two sides" were coming from. I've come out and suggested on several occasions that this simply isn't the proper website to enlighten oneself about GW.

    On the flip side, the topic seemed to have been dormant in the BAUT forums for a long time. I suppose that, like me, most regular posters quickly realised what each side had to show for itself, and made up their minds about the matter, or at least moved on to websites with better information. I can't help thinking that the recent eruption of posts on the matter may have been spurred by the Copenhagen conference, and that it should die out as we move away from that fateful event.
    Last edited by Disinfo Agent; 2009-Dec-30 at 08:03 PM. Reason: typo

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,442
    If they are still permitted, which I'm not sure they should be, they should follow ATM rules.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,083
    I voted to ban but I would be willingto allow them under the ATM rules. At the moment they are a free for all. In addition I don't think there is anyone posting to the board that has enough expertise in the are to know if any of the posts and arguments are valid.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,706
    You could make the determination that AGW is politics and disallow it.
    You could make the determination that AGW is ATM and send it there.
    You could make the determination that AAGW is ATM and send it there.

    Or tell the ten snarkyist people that one more time and they are banned.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent View Post
    I can't help thinking that the recent eruption of posts on the matter may have been spurred by the Copenhagen conference, and that it should die out as we move away from that fateful event.
    I've noticed an increased stridency in the discussions, not just on BAUT, but in newspapers, magazines, and even casual conversations. It seems to be a version of the CT armageddon-terror thinned and spread out.

    I didn't use to lecture people about not printing emails even back when I avoided printing emails, but today I'm getting emails with warnings in the sig to not print out the email from people who used to print email profligately. The extremism of the recently converted is dangerous, that's well-known, no?

    Isn't there a quote somewhere, handy?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,201
    Though more or less inconceivable for most international readers, it would seem that views on global warming in the US are often strongly affiliated with political and/or religious stances, mixed up with a douse of "lifestyle" preferences.

    As such they clash by definition with BAUT rules.

    I, for one, wouldn't miss them here. However, a sticky note should be added stating why they have been stopped.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,915
    I voted to continue a thread that includes discussion on AGW.

    The rules for the thread should be limited to politeness and no conspiracy discussion of Climategate.

    The AGW thread is currently one of the best threads in terms of its scientific content (number of papers quoted) and member participation which is positive.

    There is new information presented in the AGW thread which is interesting and which stimulates discussion.

    What is the concern with having AGW discussions? What is the problem that we are trying to fix? Limiting the AGW discussion to one thread seems to be a reasonable approach to leave room for other threads. The room problem in general science was solved.

    What is the new problem which we are trying to resolve? We do some people want to stop discussion of AGW?

    The against mainstream rules are primarily to stop people from bringing their own pet theories to BAUT. The point of having a 30 day rule is to end that type of discussion.

    I am strongly against censorship. If there is nothing new to discuss the AGW thread should and will move down.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    If they are still permitted, which I'm not sure they should be, they should follow ATM rules.
    Gillianren,

    Why do you say AGW discussions should not be permitted at BAUT?

    What is the point of stopping AGW discussions? The AGW discussion is currently limited to a single thread.

    Why is there a general section at BAUT? Would it be appropriate for me to pick specific topics and ask that they be banned?

    AGW is not like a religious discussion. There are scientific issues, new papers, and there is new data.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by kleindoofy View Post
    Though more or less inconceivable for most international readers, it would seem that views on global warming in the US are often strongly affiliated with political and/or religious stances, mixed up with a douse of "lifestyle" preferences.

    As such they clash by definition with BAUT rules.

    I, for one, wouldn't miss them here. However, a sticky note should be added stating why they have been stopped.

    Agree. Although I first registered on here over 3 years ago, I've just recently looked in again, so don't know what it's been like on the BAUT global warming threads. I'm from the UK, and post on the forums of the world's biggest betting exchange, there. I think it's inaccessible from the US. Like here, it has many different sections, mainly different sports, but also general chat, politics, financial etc.

    It has become obvious that there are politically driven contributors who invade the politics forum en masse from time to time, suggesting that they are in email contact with each other. They have an ultra left wing communist/anarchist agenda to discredit western governments, usually by attacking the leaders and foreign policy decisions. Their main method is to impugn the integrity of western leaders by asserting that everything they say is a lie. It's the same people who claim 9/11 was a CIA operation and that the Pentagon was blown up by a cruise missile to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. I've seen them on other Internet chat rooms, too.

    The same posters who attack western governments and their leaders also attack Al Gore and the IPCC and anyone who supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which includes western leaders. They claim, among other things, that it's all a con to justify raising taxes. Their aim is to undermine western democracies by brainwashing people into believing their leaders are habitual liars with malign ulterior motives

    Like I say, I've only recently looked at the AGW thread and there are undoubtedly many genuine people with a deep knowledge of the subject who simply disagree with mainstream thinking and have no political axe to grind. They just think the warming is natural. I'm anti 'Big Bang' theory. Doesn't make me an anarchist. However, you would do well to be aware that these groups are out there, although their knowledge of the subject is usually so bad, I'd be surprised to see them on here.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,915
    Quote Originally Posted by kleindoofy View Post
    Though more or less inconceivable for most international readers, it would seem that views on global warming in the US are often strongly affiliated with political and/or religious stances, mixed up with a douse of "lifestyle" preferences.

    As such they clash by definition with BAUT rules.

    I, for one, wouldn't miss them here. However, a sticky note should be added stating why they have been stopped.
    kleindoofy,
    The AGW discussion thread has no comments concerning religious stances or lifestyle preferences. Please show an example of comments concerning religious stances or lifestyle preferences in the AGW thread. AGW is not religion.

    The AGW thread is a scientific discussion concerning cloud formation, cloud cover, sea level measurement, sea level changes, planetary feedback response, current and past planetary temperature, and so on.

    Why do you want to stop discussion of AGW at BAUT? AGW discussion is limited to a single thread at BAUT, to ensure there is room for other issues to be discussed.

    What is the new problem that requires us to ban discussion of AGW?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,767
    Not sure how to vote on this.

    There have been occasional gems of useful information in the AGW threads but most of the time the discussion consists of "yes it is / no it isn't" style arguments (often with the same paper being "interpreted" for both sides of the argument).

    It is also barely relevant to the BAUT forum as a whole.

    However, the strongest argument for keeping the thread open is that it is a useful "sink" for for further discussion when people try and sneak their pro/anti AGW opinion into other threads (e.g. the recent paleo-climate thread).

    ETA: The strongest argument against keeping the thread open is the moderator overhead. I am tempted to vote for option 2...

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,721
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    kleindoofy,
    The AGW discussion thread has no comments concerning religious stances or lifestyle preferences. Please show an example of comments concerning religious stances or lifestyle preferences in the AGW thread. AGW is not religion.

    The AGW thread is a scientific discussion concerning cloud formation, cloud cover, sea level measurement, sea level changes, planetary feedback response, current and past planetary temperature, and so on.

    Why do you want to stop discussion of AGW at BAUT? AGW discussion is limited to a single thread at BAUT, to ensure there is room for other issues to be discussed.

    What is the new problem that requires us to ban discussion of AGW?
    Kleindoofy is coming in a roundabout way to the fact that there is a pronounced liberal/conservative divide in AGW support in the US.

    I dont think that that has been a problem tho.

    There isnt a new problem. It is the fact that the same old problems get recycled that is the problem.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,442
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Why do you say AGW discussions should not be permitted at BAUT?
    Because they inevitably involve the sociopolitical discussion of what ought to be done about it--or, more accurately, what oughtn't be done--and because "but this blogger says" seems to trump actual scientific research, provided the peer-reviewed studies don't say what the person believes already. There's a reason I don't even read the blasted thing anymore.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    12
    There are some very fine discussions on this subject, albeit they strain the rules imposed by the Powers-to-Be. I for one have learned a lot and have taken myself out of the BAUT mayhem. The science is clearly not settled and to keep the discussion so narrowly focused on just using cites from these pseudo-scientists’ and papers from a peer-review process that is clearly corrupted diminishes the conversation(s).

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,915
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    Kleindoofy is coming in a roundabout way to the fact that there is a pronounced liberal/conservative divide in AGW support in the US.

    I dont think that that has been a problem tho.

    There isnt a new problem. It is the fact that the same old problems get recycled that is the problem.
    "It is the fact that the same old problems get recycled that is the problem."

    The same old scientific problems have not been answered hence there are still discussed. The scientific papers we quote concerning planetary cloud cover state that this issue has not been resolved. There are new papers being written and there is new data.

    AWG is not religion.

    What is the problem with having one thread at BAUT to discuss AGW?

    Please explain the what is the problem.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,767
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    AGW is not like a religious discussion. There are scientific issues, new papers, and there is new data.
    It is a lot like a religious discussion. People have fixed views and intepret or pick the data to support their position. There may be new science and data but I haven't seen any indication that anyone would change their opinon based on it; they will either just diss it or use it to support their current position.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Because they inevitably involve the sociopolitical discussion of what ought to be done about it--or, more accurately, what oughtn't be done--and because "but this blogger says" seems to trump actual scientific research, provided the peer-reviewed studies don't say what the person believes already. There's a reason I don't even read the blasted thing anymore.
    Gillianren,

    AWG discussion should and does not start in the middle of other threads. Limiting AGW discuss to a single thread ensures there is sufficient room for other discussions.

    What other concerns do you have with a single thread being permitted at BAUT to discuss AGW.

    AGW is not religion. AGW is a scientific subject.

    There are interesting and unresolved scientific issues concerning planetary climate. There is new temperature data, and new papers that written concerning this subject. For example, the sun is currently changing will provide real world data concerning the hypothesized solar magnetic cycle modulation of clouds.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,580

    Okay, what was not clear about my "no dicussion only an argued opinion?"
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    13,886
    I voted to close, based on your red post.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,185
    My opinion (and vote) is that they should be closed. As far as I can tell, the discussions simply go around in circles with nothing new and no possibility of convincing any of the AGW skeptics of anything at all.

    There have been some attempts to ask them what sort of evidence would convince them of AGW, by presenting hypothetical "upside-down" versions of the evidence graphs they claim as evidence against it. They can't even pretend that they could see hypothetical evidence as evidence against their position.

    Since the AGW skeptics can't even pretend that they could be swayed by evidence, the discussion is a waste of time. It's just going to keep on repeating the same nonsense over and over again.

    Since the moderators have better things to do with their time than to police some useless repetitive monster thread, my opinion is that it should simply be shut down.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    ... People have fixed views and intepret or pick the data to support their position. There may be new science and data but I haven't seen any indication that anyone would change their opinon based on it; ...
    Yes, exactly. And that is one of the tests a genuine scientific discussion should be able to pass.

    Obstinate trench wars over preconceived views don't belong here.

    If the thread has been kept somewhat on track, then only due to heavy moderation and intermittent banning/suspension of a few of the participants.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    195
    I voted "yes" even though I visit that thread often and have contributed(?) to it a few times.

    I don't want to waste any more time in there but it is oddly compelling, like a slow-motion movie of a train going off a bridge and crashing into a sinking ship on which the boilers are exploding while people on the ship are arguing about the placement of the deck chairs.
    Last edited by cope; 2009-Dec-30 at 11:18 PM. Reason: Editted to sharpen my extended metaphor.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    It's not core to BAUT (there are some, barely tangential, aspects that touch on astronomy etc), and it surely takes a lot of moderator time and hassle.

    If mods are willing to keep putting the time and hassle into it, who am I to voice an opinion one way or the other?

    Except that a 'free for all' is a VERY BAD IDEA, even if all such threads were moved to BABBling (moderation would still be needed for the inevitable politics, incivility, language, etc). There are lots of fora where people with actual expertise regularly post ...

    PS: Can someone do an edit ('strickt' -> 'strict')?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Henna Oji-san View Post
    It is a lot like a religious discussion. People have fixed views and intepret or pick the data to support their position. There may be new science and data but I haven't seen any indication that anyone would change their opinon based on it; they will either just diss it or use it to support their current position.
    Henna Oji-san,

    The difference between Religion and AGW is there is new data and papers to discuss concerning the AGW predictions. AGW is not a religion.

    The "AGW" prediction can be disproved. It is a scientific prediction not a religious edict.

    Banning or forbidding scientific discussion concerning AGW does not solve a problem. The AWG thread is a single thread in the science forum. There are a multiple of scientific issues that are lumped into the AGW prediction. (Feedbacks, planetary clouds, ice sheet response, sea level rise, solar effects, and so on.)

    As to whether people will or will not change their scientific viewpoint concerning the AWG predictions, that will depend on planetary temperature data, analysis, and papers.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,915
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post

    Okay, what was not clear about my "no dicussion only an argued opinion?"
    Sorry tunsenfem,
    I did not see you included a rule that there should be no discussion of the proposed banning of AGW discussion at BAUT, in this thread.

    I assumed that it is obvious to all the AGW predictions have not been scientifically settled and there is something scientific to discuss.

    I would be interesting in assisting in the moderation of a AGW thread and would keep the discussion scientific.

    In the case of the AGW thread there needs to be moderators on both sides of the science.

    I do not understand why there is suddenly a AGW moderation problem.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,357
    Every time I open a GW thread the egregious dishonesty of the arguments, especially as practiced by two specific members I'd likely be suspended for naming, makes me feel dirty.

    I'm voting for kicking the subject out.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

Similar Threads

  1. Why are all threads that show Baut in a negative light closed?
    By tommac in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 2011-May-30, 05:36 PM
  2. BAUT Global Warming Discussion Policy
    By ToSeek in forum Forum Rules, FAQs, and Information
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 2010-May-11, 07:12 PM
  3. Global warming threads should be closed on BAUT
    By tusenfem in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2009-Dec-30, 09:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: