Global warming threads should be closed on BAUT

[tusenfem]

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).

[korjik]

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.

[Otherworldly]

My strategy has been not to read those threads. So it doesn't really affect me.

[dgavin]

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).

[William]

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.

[Disinfo Agent]

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.

[jlhredshift]

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.

[hhEb09'1]

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?

[Gillianren]

If they are still permitted, which I'm not sure they should be, they should follow ATM rules.

[kleindoofy]

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.

[W. Davidson]

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.

[William]

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?

[korjik]

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.

[William]

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.

[William]

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.

[Gillianren]

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.

[William]

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.

[Strange]

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.

[kleindoofy]

... 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.

[William]

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.

[captain swoop]

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.

[clint]

I voted to ban but I would be willing to allow them under the ATM rules.

Same here, second the motion.

With the current, massive level of media coverage about GW, I think it's really not necessary to have yet another discussion on the subject here on BAUT
- except when anybody has new evidence (in which case ATM rules seem appropriate).

[Strange]

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...

[Bright_Light]

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).

[Trakar]

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).

If nothing else, this argues strongly for moving such discussions to the "Against the Mainstream" section.

[tusenfem]

Okay, what was not clear about my "no dicussion only an argued opinion?"

[William]

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.

[Moose]

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

It's not sudden by any stretch.

I haven't voted, but I'd support either banning it outright or handling it all like an ATM claim.

[korjik]

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.

three or four years (at least!) is not sudden

[mike alexander]

I voted to close, based on your red post.