Global warming IS politics

[01101001]

Global warming is politics. No, it's not -- but for its effect on this forum perhaps it should be treated as such.

In a Q&A thread, Global Warming, crosscountry asked for resources about global warming, articles by scientists.

Immediately the thread became a discussion of opinions about global warming.

Antoniseb posts an article trying to steer the contributions back to articles about global warming, and the next three posts (so far) are about global warming opinions.

C'mon, people!

I'm so tired of seeing the members mistreating the BAUT Forum like this.

Modest proposal: global warming should be equated to politics in the Rules for Posting. Challenge: if you disagree, show I'm wrong by conducting a global-warming thread that is political-polemic free. Bet you can't.

Global warming should be a subject that can be discussed scientifically. Why isn't it?

[Serenitude]

There is already some discussion as to what exactly to do about the various and sundry Global warming threads. Community input is a good thing. Good idea to start the thread, 01101011.

[Swift]

I understand what you are saying 01101011, but I don't agree that global warming is necessarily politics.

I assume by stating that it is politics and that the appropriate rules should apply, that you are stating we should not discuss global warming.

I think people turn it into politics, and the moderators should give these discussions a very short leash and keep them out of politics. But it is possible (at least in theory) to discuss the science of global warming and to keep the discussion on that.

One could argue, for example, that how NASA spends its money, on the new moon program or fixing Hubble, is also politics. Should these discussions also be banned?

[antoniseb]

Personally, I agree with 01101001. The topic has some very passionate writers on both sides, which has so far resulted in lots of verbal abuse of members. One of my concerns is just how many threads are started on this topic.

If I remember correctly Phil and Fraser have both said that they don't want to forbid the topic (since Fraser occasionally posts stories about it, and Phil sometimes deals with it in his blog).

Perhaps the right thing to do is start a special section of the forum, so people bored with the topic don't have to have it in their face all the time.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by Swift

I assume by stating that it is politics and that the appropriate rules should apply, that you are stating we should not discuss global warming.

OK. I thought it was clear what was the attention-getting headline, but just in case others might not, I said immediately: "No, it's not, but..." I guess I should have said 4 times it isn't. Bad writing. It's not politics.

Originally Posted by Swift

I think people turn it into politics, and the moderators should give these discussions a very short leash and keep them out of politics. But it is possible (at least in theory) to discuss the science of global warming and to keep the discussion on that.

I believe we agree. It's not politics. (Did I mention?) Members do seem unable to avoid turning it into politics -- the same people who might very well be able to actually discuss religion and politics and stay nearly within this forum's rules.

I think what would be fun, were I the King of BAUT, would be to start up a global-warming thread, after a refinement of the rules, one with an appropriate warning on it to avoid the sort of extreme claims and bad feelings that general discussions of politics and religion generate, let it roll for some weeks, then ruthlessly ban all the members who violated the constraints. I don't think I'd really miss those with so little self-control.

Originally Posted by Swift

One could argue, for example, that how NASA spends its money, on the new moon program or fixing Hubble, is also politics. Should these discussions also be banned?

Treat it just like politics. It's another topic of equally high emotion. Last time I read the rules, politics isn't banned. But, it is circumscribed.

As for Antoniseb's suggestion of giving it its own section, I could see it. I'm not sure it would work any better than sections for politics and religion. I think the conversations would be just as heated. It may require very close watching to keep the flames under control. It might be worth a try though. Maybe members will surprise me. Maybe the topic's well-apparent specialness would keep them reasonable.

[Serenitude]

That's part of my problem right now.

It's requiring close watch of at least 6 seperate threads right now, which IMO is a little overkill. It's not like different arguments are being made in the varyign threads. One centralized thread would not only make in easire for mods to keep an eye on, it would make less hunting and pecking time for members to read and contribute to the discussion.

[Ronald Brak]

As I mentioned in the thread Global Warming thread, I've been experimenting with making my posts have more emotional impact, as "cool" posts don't seem to have much of an impact. After reading this thread I take it this is a bad thing and that I should revert back to being more Spock like. Although I have to admit that being Spock like seems to infuriate some people too.

One thing I've noticed with global warming and other topics that are politically charged is that some people don't pay attention to what you wrote in your post but appear to merely use it as a basis to pigeon hole you as a member of a certain group and then ascribe beliefs to you they believe this group has while ignoring what you actually posted. They then write a reply to this group they think you belong to rather than write a reply to your post. I find this makes discussion difficult. Recently when I've thought that this might become a problem I have taken to putting disclaimers at the end of my post that state that just because I have said A does not imply B, C and D. I haven't been doing this long enough to know if this helps.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

Perhaps the right thing to do is start a special section of the forum, so people bored with the topic don't have to have it in their face all the time.

I see some advantages there, but we also run the risk of that special section giving the appearance of encouragement of the topic, which may send a mixed message.

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

Perhaps the right thing to do is start a special section of the forum, so people bored with the topic don't have to have it in their face all the time.

We could call it "Hot Air."

[Musashi]

Well, now it makes sense that politics and GW are tied together.

[davidlpf]

well the only way I link politics to the enviroment is when it is realy windy I say like " it is windier then standing front of a pollitcians mouth".

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Serenitude

That's part of my problem right now.

It's requiring close watch of at least 6 seperate threads right now, which IMO is a little overkill. It's not like different arguments are being made in the varyign threads. One centralized thread would not only make in easire for mods to keep an eye on, it would make less hunting and pecking time for members to read and contribute to the discussion.

Two thoughts.

First, if there are multiple simultaneous threads, why not merge them, this has certainly happened before. I think it would be a good idea.

Second, how many times have we had multiple Lunar landing hoax or similar threads? And how many times have we repeated those arguments over and over? Why are these not the same problem?

Lastly - sorry 01101001 if I misunderstood your post.

[Serenitude]

I'm not sure that they would make linear sense if merged. I'm still learning the ropes here. Merging has been suggested, though

For the second idea, that's true, but they've been in the same forum, at least. With global warning, we have them in 3, that I can see, maybe more. That's alot of leg-work. Not saying it's not worth it, but it could be simplified.

[Fraser]

Yeah, my vote is that we create a single thread in the General Science section called "Evidence against manmade global warming". The title itself should remind people what the thread should be about. Any new topics started get put in there. That way it doesn't get closed in 30 days, and it doesn't overrun the forum.

[Serenitude]

I agree. We could post a note in every thread that states that in a certain time limit (5 days? 10?) that the threads will be closed, and all participants are encouraged to migrate thier positions to the new thread to continue discussion. Yay? Nay?

[Ronald Brak]

How about a thread called, "Thread for People Who Accept the Evidence That a Not Insignificant Amount of Anthropogenic Global Warming is Occurring."

In this thread people could discuss the likely effects of global warming, its effects on economies and societies, what could or should be done about it, how it could be mitigated and so on. Currently these things can't really be discussed without debate occuring on whether or not anthropogenic global warming is or isn't occurring.

[Ronald Brak]

Now that I've thought about it, we might actually need a thread called, "Thread for people who think that significant anthropogenic global warming is occurring and aren't convinced that there is nothing that can be done about it." Otherwise the debate might switch from whether or not there is anthropogenic global warming or not to whether it is possible to do anything about it or not. Not that I have anything against an honest discussion of discount rates and possible future trends in productivity figures.

[Jakenorrish]

Climate change / global warming is a scientific issue which is linked with our understanding of any atmospheric climate changes in the solar system. These may occur on other planets and Moons such as Venus and Titan, so we have to discuss it.

The fact that politicians discuss it also is both a blessing and a curse. We'd all like our elected representatives to take an interest in pure science, but sadly sometimes their own agendas can get in the way of the facts.

It is our obligation on this board to discuss the facts. If a politician comes out with something that plainly contradicts a proven fact on this issue, then we're duty bound to make the fact along with the evidence clear for all. After all, we're not discussing anything other than the scientific fact, the politicians political alegience or their policies concerning other things outside science shouldn't come into it.

However, all too often in this type of discussion, one thing leads to another. There would be no problem if we keep it scientific. If politics get in the way of the science, then the Moderators must come down on it like a tonne of bricks. If the Mods give clarification of the rules at the earliest opportunity on aspects of this (very popular) topic when they arise then it should work well, and lead to us all learning more about it.

[Kwalish Kid]

It is my humble opinion that the jury is still out.

Honestly, it's comments like this that force this issue into politics. There is no way that one could honestly come to this conclusion. What jury? It can't be the jury of climatologists. This is because there really are no practicing climatologists that disagree with global warming as a primarily human influenced phenomena. One example of a supposedly dissenting climatologists is the Canadian "climatologist" from the other thread who has no recent history of publishing in the field, documented examples of taking money from oil companies, and documented cases of false statements being made about his CV in the public occurrences where his work is mentioned. (Where are his letters of correction on these matters?)

The political response to this fact is that there must be some kind of conspiracy for government dollars. Yet where there is significant incentive from a government to deny global warming, the vast majority of climatologists still refuse to deny global warming.

The jury can still be out only in a pool of non-climatologists, most of which do have obvious ties to greenhouse gas polluters. Some political argument must be used to support the adoption of this jury on this issue, since there can be no scientific reason to pick this jury.

[HenrikOlsen]

And thus the discussion about what to do with the threads about Global Warming has become Yet Another Thread About Global Warming(tm).

Next post here about Global Warming rather than what to do about the threads about it will result in the poster getting a timeout.

[jlhredshift]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

And thus the discussion about what to do with the threads about Global Warming has become Yet Another Thread About Global Warming(tm).

Next post here about Global Warming rather than what to do about the threads about it will result in the poster getting a timeout.

Agreed!

I would prefer a section called "Climatology", or "Planetary Climatolgy", or "Paleontological Climatology" be available and have the rules stick to science sans any advocacy to action.

[korjik]

This wouldnt help the moderators in the short run, but maybe being alot more strict on what can be discussed in a thread would help. Using Ronald Brak's idea in post 16 as an example, if someone starts a thread on 'what can we do about global warming' and someone takes it into whether GW exists, then they get a warning or worse.

Another idea is to have the thread starters monitor their threads. If the thread starts to stray away form the OP topic, a moderator sends a PM to the thread starter asking what he wants to do. If the thread starter dosent respond, then the thread gets closed.

[Pinemarten]

I believe a single GW thread won't be enough. I think it should be a forum. One thread wouldn't be able to cover the many aspects of GW without causing confusion. The flow of one discussion would confuse the flow of the other 47 discussions.

[Jim]

I believe a single GW thread won't be enough.

I think you're right. There are just too many topics and permutations to cover effectively in a single thread.

I think it should be a forum.

Probably so, IF you want to localize the discussion(s).

[antoniseb]

Originally Posted by Pinemarten

I believe a single GW thread won't be enough. I think it should be a forum. One thread wouldn't be able to cover the many aspects of GW without causing confusion.

One of the problems I'd like to overcome is that there have been recently so many independent threads covering more or less the same ground that it makes it look like a large fraction of all astronomy and spaceflight research is about global warming. This is not the case.

Someone above pointed out that giving it its own section would help to give the impression that it is highly debated. I agree that this is a problem with the its-own-forum-section solution. I just don't know where the balance one against the other is yet. So this discussion is useful, if we can just stay on the topic of finding the best way to keep the many global warming threads from muddying all the other sections.

[Pinemarten]

How about a sub-forum of General Science then? A subforum would lower its signifgance.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

Someone above pointed out that giving it its own section would help to give the impression that it is highly debated.

I'd actually meant inadvertantly encouraging the discussions here, which is something the admin may not intend, at least by my understanding of what they've said in the past. As I understand it, it's a situation of (extremely paraphrased) "not banned outright but not encouraged, handle with soft gloves", much like discussions on creationism/intelligent design are handled.

But you're right in that it might also inadvertantly legitimize the "debate" itself, much like public discussions of ID or the Apollo Hoax have inadvertantly legitimized those "debates".

[HenrikOlsen]

A suggestion that's been discussed earlier was to have one general thread, but allow other threads if they are significantly different from general discussion.

One example given was that a discussion about a specific TV program's treatment of the question would be specific enough to warrant it's own thread, which could then be closed with a reference to the general thread if the discussion turned general or political.

The real problem at the moment is that with so many threads, it's like herding cats.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Moose

But you're right in that it might also inadvertantly legitimize the "debate" itself, much like public discussions of ID or the Apollo Hoax have inadvertantly legitimized those "debates".

I wasn't aware scientific debate was illegitimate.

Anyway, usually I see three main GW subject areas come up:

- What is the current significance of anthropogenic global warming?

- To what extent can we predict future climate change?

- What should we do (or not do) to attempt to change the climate?

And then every now and then there is a documentary or show on the subject that gets separate discussion.

Unfortunately, I don't see how it is possible to separate politics in this subject. You might limit the allowed politics to one position or another, but I see politics infiltrating the subject from all directions.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

I wasn't aware scientific debate was illegitimate.

Never said it was. GW isn't a scientific debate, however. The scientific debate ended when the concensus formed. It's now a political debate. And that's what I'd hate to see get legitimized here (in certain eyes, anyway). Much the same way as the Apollo and evolution "debates" got legitimized elsewhere.