Global warming threads should be closed on BAUT

[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]

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 supporters of anything at all.

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

Since the AGW supporters 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.

And yet again, we see why they should be closed.

Yeah, I did mod the quote, so it isnt really a quote

[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

[nauthiz]

If there is a moratorium, I'd hope it only covers the anthropogenic global warming debate in particular. I'd feel rather guilty if it were to turn out that a speculative discussion about terraforming Mars or the possibility of life on it or something like that gets nixed because the subject involves climate change.

[Swift]

Just as some background information, with no hidden agenda to influence the poll, here is some data and my thoughts about how much moderation goes into AGW. Both of these are based on Reported Posts.

First, my "thoughts". My gut feeling is that over the last couple of months, and after taking out the housekeeping reports (like spam and such), I'd say AGW is probably the second highest category of Reported Posts, with number one being ATM. CT used to be number 2, but it has been quiet lately.

I also went and counted for the last 30 Reported Posts, which goes back to December 27. The last week or so may, or may not, be typical. Here is the tally:

Global warming 12
ATM 8
Housekeeping 2
Spam 2
Other 6

[nauthiz]

I also went and counted for the last 30 Reported Posts, which goes back to December 27. The last week or so may, or may not, be typical. Here is the tally:

Global warming 12
ATM 8
Housekeeping 2
Spam 2
Other 6

Hmm. By my tally there are 3 GW threads that were active in that time period, versions 14 ATM threads.

That makes GW's reporting rate ~1 report per thread-day, vs. ~0.14 per thread-day for ATM. (Tildes because I didn't bother to take into account that some threads were only active for part of that time period.)

[Larry Jacks]

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).

Since the ClimateGate memos showed efforts to manipulate the peer-review process to shut out authors that disagreed with AGW, your demand is one to stiffle debate, not enhance it.

If we keep the AGW threads, perhaps they should be consolidated in one area. Perhaps they should be broken into smaller threads addressing specific topics instead of lumped into a thread thousand of messages long and spanning years. I doubt anyone is willing to read all of that.

[Swift]

Hmm. By my tally there are 3 GW threads that were active in that time period, versions 14 ATM threads.

That makes GW's reporting rate ~1 report per thread-day, vs. ~0.14 per thread-day for ATM. (Tildes because I didn't bother to take into account that some threads were only active for part of that time period.)

Correct, with two minor corrections. First, in my tally for ATM I included some reports that were about, for example, ATM being discussed where it shouldn't be, such as in Q&A. So that might actually drop the ATM per thread count.

Second, 3 GW threads is rare, for most of the past six months, there has only been one.

I think the bigger problem with this data might be that it is not typical. The forum has been generally quiet the last few weeks, with many fewer posts. I suspect, as our members return from the holidays, things will get back to normal.

[nimbus2506]

As an outsider I am enjoying the General GW thread. I wake up and catch up on what I missed out on during sleep and when I go to bed I spend my day catching up on what I missed out on during the day. And this includes looking at journal articles cited and so forth...


Seriously, this is like the only forum out there with a GW forum that actually has strict rules in place with people who are intelligent enough to understand the GW processes and actually uses journals.

I am enjoying this discussion immensely. I'm only dreading going away for a week and coming back only to discover I have to read up on 20 more pages of AGW

[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).

[Van Rijn]

I've been in favor of closing the AGW threads for years. Politics are just too deeply integrated into the subject, regardless of the "side," and I didn't come to BAUT for political debates. Admittedly, I usually avoid the AGW threads, so it doesn't mean that much to me personally.

There's also been a suggestion by some in this thread of having AGW "follow ATM rules." I'm not quite sure what is meant by this, but if they mean giving remaining AGW threads thirty days to finish up, then closing them all permanently (essentially the same as the poll option) I'd agree with that. If they mean having everyone in an AGW thread being required to answer direct questions about their claims, I'd agree with that. However, I would not like to see a situation where only some were required to answer direct questions about this subject.

[kleindoofy]

... Politics are just too deeply integrated into the subject ...

Although as far as I know, that phenomenon is almost exclusively confined to the U.S.

[captain swoop]

Not so, read some of the UK Newspapers. Quite a few are very partisan, their views spplit down party lines on AGW.

[kleindoofy]

Not so ...

Ok, I stand corrected, at least in part.

[Van Rijn]

Although as far as I know, that phenomenon is almost exclusively confined to the U.S.

I strongly disagree. The recent U.N. climate summit was clearly a political event that was not confined to just the U.S. AGW has major, undeniable, global political aspects.

[kleindoofy]

... AGW has major, undeniable, global political aspects.

Of course. But I wasn't referring to politicians. They could make the sun setting in the West a political issue.

What I meant was how members of the general public propone or deny AGW with a missionary passion strictly according to their political persuasion, even (or especially) when they don't have the slightest notion of what they're talking about.

I mean this apart from the more unreflective individuals who say "AWG is a joke" on cold days and tremble in panic on warm days.

[korjik]

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).

Since the ClimateGate memos showed efforts to manipulate the peer-review process to shut out authors that disagreed with AGW, your demand is one to stiffle debate, not enhance it.

If we keep the AGW threads, perhaps they should be consolidated in one area. Perhaps they should be broken into smaller threads addressing specific topics instead of lumped into a thread thousand of messages long and spanning years. I doubt anyone is willing to read all of that.

Unfortunately, it is the standard for science and the only standard we have short of demanding scholastic credentials and a test in the basics.

[korjik]

Just as some background information, with no hidden agenda to influence the poll, here is some data and my thoughts about how much moderation goes into AGW. Both of these are based on Reported Posts.

First, my "thoughts". My gut feeling is that over the last couple of months, and after taking out the housekeeping reports (like spam and such), I'd say AGW is probably the second highest category of Reported Posts, with number one being ATM. CT used to be number 2, but it has been quiet lately.

I also went and counted for the last 30 Reported Posts, which goes back to December 27. The last week or so may, or may not, be typical. Here is the tally:

Global warming 12
ATM 8
Housekeeping 2
Spam 2
Other 6

Even if GW is up by a factor of 2 in reporting rate, that is still way too much for a topic that is peripheral to the theme of the forum.

[TheOncomingStorm]

Put it in the ATM and make the posters follw the rules there, if they don't close the threads and do not GW posts allowed here.

[Glom]

Simple solution. Ban global warming. Then there'll be no need for the threads. Surely reinventing the laws of physics is easier than keeping this topic under control.

[SolusLupus]

I just realized that "warming" is misspelled in this thread title. I could easily read this as a desire to close down threads about "whamming" the globe.

[Ari Jokimaki]

I don't have much of an opinion about this. I can certainly do without discussing climate issues in this forum. There are plenty of places out there where one can "debate" this thing. However, we just recently got the new rules, and knowing how much more well-behaved discussions on this topic are at Physics Forums which has similar rules for this topic as we currently have, makes me wish to see this little bit further. I think there might still be an adjustment period to the new rules ongoing.

[Veeger]

How does one decide what is "mainstream" and thus "against the mainstream", with respect to AGW? And shouldn't there be a clear distinction between GW and AGW?


btw - I would favor continued discussion with moderation but I am not a fan of "strict moderation" as the poll suggests.

[Otherworldly]

Simple solution. Ban global warming. Then there'll be no need for the threads. Surely reinventing the laws of physics is easier than keeping this topic under control.

Banning global warming is trivial. Enforcing the ban may be trickier though.

[Swift]

I just realized that "warming" is misspelled in this thread title. I could easily read this as a desire to close down threads about "whamming" the globe.

Fixed

[SolusLupus]

Swift just edited my one source of amusement this morning, outside of Megatokyo. I am sad.

[Swift]

Swift just edited my one source of amusement this morning, outside of Megatokyo. I am sad.

I'm just the wet blanket of life.

[Otherworldly]

I'm just the wet blanket of life.

May we call you that?

[swampyankee]

In general, I think that AGW has become as much of a political football as has teaching of evolution in US public schools. If the threads are to remain open, I suggest that they would require fairly heavy-handed moderation. Neglecting the fact that sufficient moderation would, in and of itself, be very controversial, the moderators are probably volunteers, with Real Lives, and can't spend enough time to moderate a small subset of threads without severe consequences, like foreclosure.

I rarely visit the AGW threads; too much heat and not enough light, so I would not be impacted by what the moderators decide.

[Veeger]

I rarely visit the AGW threads; too much heat and not enough light, so I would not be impacted by what the moderators decide.

So why would you be impacted, if the mods did no moderation except perhaps respond to "reported" posts? Like you, I stay out of the discussion. People go in by choice and in so doing willingly expose themselves to the rhetoric which exists in these kinds of threads. Perhaps we need a special forum labelled "Enter at your own risk/peril" where these kinds of discussions can proceed with a simpler set of moderation criteria - like no swearing and no personal attacks.