Should there be a moratorium on the topic of GW

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Mainstream scientific understandings of Climate Change, the BAUT boards and moderators will begin accepting the following tenets as the Mainstream scientific understanding of this subject: and then list the 2-4 primary tenets that best represent the mainstream scientific view. Note that comments or posts which express views that are Against the Mainstream view will be moved to the ATM section for followup either in existing or new threads.

Aye, thar's the rub.

I suspect that you would be hard pressed to get the five or ten most active people who post to the AGW threads, on both sides of the issue, to agree as to what which tenets are even the "mainstream scientific understanding". But I'd be curious to see a list of them and I'd be game to run them up the flagpole (it sounds like Paracelsus may be working on that)

Look, I'll lay a couple of my different cards on the table.

First, if anyone has looked at what I've posted way back when in the AGW threads, I am solidly in the camp that AGW is mainstream science, and that the remaining unknowns are mostly in the details. If this were my board I would have ruled a long time ago that anti-AGW is ATM, and would have pushed such discussions over there.

But, I will also say that I'm no expert on the matter. And at least some of the anti-AGW arguments are not just the more usual wacky ATM stuff, like the Iron Sun stuff. Further, while the apparent majority of science has gotten behind AGW, it is still appears to be a debatable issue in the public's eye. As a couple of people have pointed out (such as Pumpkinpie), hearing both sides of the debate is educational.

And I obviously have a prejudice on the matter. As a moderator, I try to be fair and give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I'm being unfair to the anti-AGW side. I feel strongly enough on this issue that I can't be sure if my thoughts are completely unbiased.

I will raise one other thing that bothers me. As I said, I used to post fairly frequently on this issue, such as referencing an interesting article I might read. But the contentiousness of the issue, the fact that anything I would say would just start a new round of debate over the same issues over and over again - well, it took any joy out of it. To use a very poor analogy, it would be like if every time dgavin posted a new volcano report, that it triggered a huge debate with the Expanding Earth believers. I grew completely tired of it.

And, on those occasions when I do look back in on those threads... well, it constantly sounds like the same old, same old.

Lastly, I would love to see the membership reach some sort of general consensus on how to go with this, either in this thread, or by some other means. I suspect, if that happened, that the moderators would go along with it. But I have no belief that is going to happen. And I have no problem with the idea that the owners themselves, or the moderation team as a whole, just decides something and enacts it as the law. While we try very hard to be fair, this isn't a democracy.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Swift

Aye, thar's the rub.

I suspect that you would be hard pressed to get the five or ten most active people who post to the AGW threads, on both sides of the issue, to agree as to what which tenets are even the "mainstream scientific understanding". But I'd be curious to see a list of them and I'd be game to run them up the flagpole (it sounds like Paracelsus may be working on that)
(...)

Not to slight the rest of your commentary, which makes some excellent points, but I do wish to focus upon the above section for the time being.

To my way of thinking, it really isn't, or shouldn't be an issue of whether or not the supporters or opponents on this board individually or mutually agree upon the Mainstream view, the mainstream view is available from the mainstream organizations. When we want to know the mainstream science perspective on an issue of Chemistry, we go to the national and/or international organizations of chemistry/chemists, since our issue involves climate change, I propose that we go to the national and/or international organizations specific to climate and climate change to get the mainstream perspective.

<AGW references snipped as inappropriate to this thread>

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Trakar

To my way of thinking, it really isn't, or shouldn't be an issue of whether or not the supporters or opponents on this board individually or mutually agree upon the Mainstream view, the mainstream view is available from the mainstream organizations.

I'm sorry, I may have made myself unclear. I wasn't looking for a consensus among the membership as to an opinion on AGW, but a consensus on the rules on how to run the discussion. But I doubt we can even reach that.

One of several possible ways to do that is for the rules to state that any anti-AGW ideas are ATM, or any ideas that go against parts of AGW (insert your "the 2-4 primary tenets") are ATM. But, it seems to me that one of the arguments I have seen made here by anti-AGW proponents is just because the Global Association of Neato Scientists as a body has endorsed the idea of AGW, it doesn't make it the mainstream idea. I personally don't agree with that opinion, but I can see where they are coming from.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Not to slight the rest of your commentary, which makes some excellent points, but I do wish to focus upon the above section for the time being.

To my way of thinking, it really isn't, or shouldn't be an issue of whether or not the supporters or opponents on this board individually or mutually agree upon the Mainstream view, the mainstream view is available from the mainstream organizations. When we want to know the mainstream science perspective on an issue of Chemistry, we go to the national and/or international organizations of chemistry/chemists, since our issue involves climate change, I propose that we go to the national and/or international organizations specific to climate and climate change to get the mainstream perspective.

<AGW references snipped as inappropriate to this thread>

Trakar, it has been stated multiple times in this thread that discussion of the AGW subject is off-limits yet you attempt to do just that by defining which parts of the discussion is ATM.
As others have already been suspended for this I'm doing the same to you.

Seriously people, we're currently here to discuss whether to draw the line, not to decide where the line is drawn. That's an entirely different, though equally important, discussion.

[HenrikOlsen]

OK.
I'll make this perfectly clear.
Do not post any links to any side in thew debate.

[Paracelsus]

Update: Mugaliens and Orionjim have given me great places to start on the tutorial idea, and I'm working on the idea as I have time.

I reiterate that I'd like to see expertise on this topic developed for this forum, such that MT and ATM views can be discussed in an appropriate manner without resorting to parroting or politics. This would take the discussion above political sloganism and put the focus on the data instead of the drama.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

This would take the discussion above political sloganism and put the focus on the data instead of the drama.

How are you going to do that? Or to rephrase, how are you going to convince posters to behave in an apolitical manner?

[korjik]

Originally Posted by Swift

Aye, thar's the rub.

I suspect that you would be hard pressed to get the five or ten most active people who post to the AGW threads, on both sides of the issue, to agree as to what which tenets are even the "mainstream scientific understanding". But I'd be curious to see a list of them and I'd be game to run them up the flagpole (it sounds like Paracelsus may be working on that)

Look, I'll lay a couple of my different cards on the table.

First, if anyone has looked at what I've posted way back when in the AGW threads, I am solidly in the camp that AGW is mainstream science, and that the remaining unknowns are mostly in the details. If this were my board I would have ruled a long time ago that anti-AGW is ATM, and would have pushed such discussions over there.

But, I will also say that I'm no expert on the matter. And at least some of the anti-AGW arguments are not just the more usual wacky ATM stuff, like the Iron Sun stuff. Further, while the apparent majority of science has gotten behind AGW, it is still appears to be a debatable issue in the public's eye. As a couple of people have pointed out (such as Pumpkinpie), hearing both sides of the debate is educational.

And I obviously have a prejudice on the matter. As a moderator, I try to be fair and give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I'm being unfair to the anti-AGW side. I feel strongly enough on this issue that I can't be sure if my thoughts are completely unbiased.

I will raise one other thing that bothers me. As I said, I used to post fairly frequently on this issue, such as referencing an interesting article I might read. But the contentiousness of the issue, the fact that anything I would say would just start a new round of debate over the same issues over and over again - well, it took any joy out of it. To use a very poor analogy, it would be like if every time dgavin posted a new volcano report, that it triggered a huge debate with the Expanding Earth believers. I grew completely tired of it.

And, on those occasions when I do look back in on those threads... well, it constantly sounds like the same old, same old.

Lastly, I would love to see the membership reach some sort of general consensus on how to go with this, either in this thread, or by some other means. I suspect, if that happened, that the moderators would go along with it. But I have no belief that is going to happen. And I have no problem with the idea that the owners themselves, or the moderation team as a whole, just decides something and enacts it as the law. While we try very hard to be fair, this isn't a democracy.

I have a different view on AGW, but I have to agree with alot of what Swift is saying here. If someone looks at my posting in GW threads, I am not a believer in AGW. Specifically, I take the opposite view of Swift, and believe the devil is in the details. Swift is correct that AGW is mainstream science tho. In another one of these GW moratorium threads I posted that I thought that if we were going to allow GW threads here, then all posters should have to defend their position with references. Basically, all posters would have to follow ATM rules if they wanted to post.

That goes to what Swift mentioned about experts. We dont have an admitted climate change expert here. We have the best Moon Hoax debunkers on the planet, but no experts on climate. We are stuck with only published data in a suspect discipline with no looks at the raw data. We are stuck with imperfect understanding of the theories.

I think that this has led to the stagnation of the debate. Like Swift, I have found that the AGW debate here is more like a Monty Python sketch than a scientific discussion. I go a step farther tho, in that I dont really think that the discussion can change anytime soon.

It is why I do think that a moratorium should be put in place. Until we get an honest to goodness expert who can beat down the doubters, we arent going to be able to do anything in a GW thread other than create work for the mods.

P.s. Thanks for comparing me to the Iron Sun guys Swift!

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

How are you going to do that? Or to rephrase, how are you going to convince posters to behave in an apolitical manner?

I have absolutely no idea, at present.

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by korjik

I have a different view on AGW, but I have to agree with alot of what Swift is saying here. If someone looks at my posting in GW threads, I am not a believer in AGW. Specifically, I take the opposite view of Swift, and believe the devil is in the details. Swift is correct that AGW is mainstream science tho. In another one of these GW moratorium threads I posted that I thought that if we were going to allow GW threads here, then all posters should have to defend their position with references. Basically, all posters would have to follow ATM rules if they wanted to post.

That would be saying the normal rules for scientific discourse here would be inapplicable to AGW, which you've just admitted to be the MT view in the discipline of climatology.

That goes to what Swift mentioned about experts. We dont have an admitted climate change expert here. We have the best Moon Hoax debunkers on the planet, but no experts on climate.

I completely agree with that point, hence my offer to get myself up to speed on climate science to act as the resident expert. Of course, others could do the same.

We are stuck with only published data in a suspect discipline with no looks at the raw data. We are stuck with imperfect understanding of the theories.

Here's the rub as far as you are concerned: you do not think climate science is a valid field. If climate science is not a valid science, then how can we possibly include Astrobiology as a valid science, when the field doesn't have a single datapoint to its name?? Yet, there is an entire forum devoted to conversations about the subject. As Spock would say, 'Fascinating.' I'd also like to point out that, if climatology is not a valid science, having an in-house expert in the subject would not be very helpful RE the quality of the debate on AGW. For instance, would you think that having a parapsychologist on the forum would be helpful in debunking the concepts of ghosts, poltergeists, telekinesis, and associated phenomena?

I think that this has led to the stagnation of the debate. Like Swift, I have found that the AGW debate here is more like a Monty Python sketch than a scientific discussion. I go a step farther tho, in that I dont really think that the discussion can change anytime soon.

I disagree. Did you even read my post in this thread or the PM I sent you on the same subject?

It is why I do think that a moratorium should be put in place. Until we get an honest to goodness expert who can beat down the doubters, we arent going to be able to do anything in a GW thread other than create work for the mods.

I agree that a temporary moratorium pending acquisition of a sufficient # of experts in the subject might be productive, but a permanent one would be damaging to the scientific integrity of this board.

[nauthiz]

I'm not so sure the presence of an expert would really have that much of an impact.

The internet is full of expert-maintained resources on the subject, many of which already make somewhat regular appearances in the GW threads. If we presume the existence of a mainstream view then it stands to reason that, in the aggregate, experts would all have pretty much the same thing to say about the big points. I've noticed that all the expert-maintained FAQs on the subject certainly do. And I've also noticed that everything generally boils down to the same few talking points, all of which are discussed in detail in the aforementioned resources. With all that in mind, it seems like an authoritative forum member shouldn't be able to contribute much that an authoritative website can't also provide.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by nauthiz

I'm not so sure the presence of an expert would really have that much of an impact.

For me, I think it might make an impact. If there were subject matter experts here, I would be more likely to read the threads and ask questions. At this time, I don't see much point in participating in them.

And I've also noticed that everything generally boils down to the same few talking points, all of which are discussed in detail in the aforementioned resources. With all that in mind, it seems like an authoritative forum member shouldn't be able to contribute much that an authoritative website can't also provide.

There are common questions here in the Q&A section, for instance about Big Bang cosmology, that are (in basic form) answered in various online FAQs. However, discussions here often get into details that are not discussed in those FAQs, or discuss other space, astronomy or cosmology issues that either aren't on any specific website, or are at least difficult to find unless you know just what to look for.

[Van Rijn]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

Here's the rub as far as you are concerned: you do not think climate science is a valid field. If climate science is not a valid science, then how can we possibly include Astrobiology as a valid science, when the field doesn't have a single datapoint to its name?? Yet, there is an entire forum devoted to conversations about the subject. As Spock would say, 'Fascinating.'

I guess you're thinking of the "Life in Space" forum? I won't comment on climate science or astrobiology, but regarding that forum, there are some astrobiology specific threads, but a lot of SETI, Fermi/Drake discussion, and so on. That forum usually deals in speculation, and in my opinion, has the closest thing to open ATM discussion on this board.

Also, Fermi discussions always go around in circles, sometimes become very heated and sometimes result in bans. It's a bit like climate change threads, though with less data and a more complex subject.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

That would be saying the normal rules for scientific discourse here would be inapplicable to AGW, which you've just admitted to be the MT view in the discipline of climatology.

Actually it would be saying that the normal rules for scientific discourse should be enforced.

[korjik]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

That would be saying the normal rules for scientific discourse here would be inapplicable to AGW, which you've just admitted to be the MT view in the discipline of climatology.

What Henrik said

I have never denied that my views on AGW are ATM. As a matter of fact, when I first suggested that GW threads should be forced to be rigorous, I flat out said that my views and commenting style on GW wouldn't pass my own muster.

One thing to remember is that BAUT isnt particularly scientific. It is a really good forum, not a scientific journal. I think that the GW dicussion here would not be able to progress unless it was held to strict standards. The problem is that would make for alot of work for mods.

I completely agree with that point, hence my offer to get myself up to speed on climate science to act as the resident expert. Of course, others could do the same.

That is alot of speed. My problems with GW are problems of methodology and rigour, not theory. I would need a better understanding of the raw data, not published papers.

Here's the rub as far as you are concerned: you do not think climate science is a valid field. If climate science is not a valid science, then how can we possibly include Astrobiology as a valid science, when the field doesn't have a single datapoint to its name?? Yet, there is an entire forum devoted to conversations about the subject. As Spock would say, 'Fascinating.' I'd also like to point out that, if climatology is not a valid science, having an in-house expert in the subject would not be very helpful RE the quality of the debate on AGW. For instance, would you think that having a parapsychologist on the forum would be helpful in debunking the concepts of ghosts, poltergeists, telekinesis, and associated phenomena?

You misunderstand me slightly. My view isnt that climate science is not a valid field, it is that climatology has been corrupted by fame, money, and zealotry. Another thing I have said here is that I worry that when the doom and gloom of AGW dosent come to pass, that we will have a 'boy who cried wolf' situation and people wont take any science seriously any more.

This does tie in to why I want an expert. I want someone who can take my problems with AGW and tear them apart from first principles on his own. That is what is really needed to get things going in this discussion

I disagree. Did you even read my post in this thread or the PM I sent you on the same subject?

Actually, I had logged on to respond to your PM when I saw this post.

I agree that a temporary moratorium pending acquisition of a sufficient # of experts in the subject might be productive, but a permanent one would be damaging to the scientific integrity of this board.

I dont think that the scientific integrity of the board would suffer. Partly because I dont think there is much integrity in the debate right now, partly because we dont have anyone who can break the logjam that the debate is stuck in right now.

[mahesh]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Dump it. When I glance at one of the topic it seems like most of the participants are in full la-la-la-la mode, talking without listening -- just like the typical political discussion, with the same hard feelings. I swear, I predict, some day scientists will do functional MRI on people read statements about global warming and statements about political opinions and the same regions of the brain will light up. (In my fantasy, it's mostly R-complex lighting up like a pinball machine. I can almost picture people typing their messages with tongues flicking.)
..Or just get it over with and dump it.

my blue...
zero one, you are seriously funny.

oh, what a scream...I'm in the ROTLF...mode (chrissy knows what ah mean) . I too have seen these critters...

[Gillianren]

Originally Posted by korjik

One thing to remember is that BAUT isnt particularly scientific. It is a really good forum, not a scientific journal.

I disagree with the first one and agree with the second. We are not the height of scientific rigour, to be sure, but that doesn't mean we aren't particularly scientific. We do, in many places, try to work within a basic scientific framework. We're amateurs, or at least just doing things here for fun, and this isn't anything approaching the level of expertise you'd get examining your idea for publication in a journal. But I'd say, rather, "isn't as scientific as other things." The quest for knowledge and the requirements of evidence are very scientific, even though we don't work as hard on that as we might.

[Ivan Viehoff]

I observe this thread happened while I was on holiday and has, perhaps, died without conclusion. I hope you won't mind a new point.

To my mind, no one has really stated what I consider to be the main problem of what is going on, on this board, in climate change debates. In my view the real problem is that a lot of what is going on in the climate change threads is that some people are engaging not in debate but using pseudo-scientific techniques to engage in advocacy rather than debate.
For example, they employ:
- egregious misuse of statistics
- selective quotes out of context
- making a point and giving a reference to support it, which when someone follows it up discovers the reference doesn't actually support that point at all
- referencing papers that have been discredited

Now some of this is certainly due to ignorance, or at least due to optimism. Engaging in one or two of the above practices from time to time might be sloppy, but when one makes a habit of it, it starts to look deliberate.

Now someone might find, for example, some convincing-looking but pseudoscientific advocacy piece and being fooled by it quotes it, so that someone has to debunk it. But when they use the same argument methods themselves, that to my mind is naughty.

So, as someone dared to say to someone's face, as it were, in one thread a few weeks ago, there are people here who are doing this deliberately. One's sense that they are deliberate is reinforced when we observe the following practices in debate:

- the advocate demands a higher standard of proof from those denying the point made by the advocate than they employed themselves
- the advocate selectively responds to some small points and technicalities, while ignoring substantive points, so as to give the impression to an outside observer that a vigorous debate is going on, whereas in fact the substantive point is lost.
- despite having lost the substantial point, they return with it in later threads, perhaps hoping that the people who know the convincing counter-argument will miss it

I must say that there are some very hard workers on this board who do know the literature and are ready with quick replies to squash down the repeated emergences of pseudoscientific arguments. They are very patient.

The critic knows he has won, and is merely annoyed by the lack of acknowledgment and continued nit-picking. But external observers, seeing the debate apparently going on may not realise this, and come away thinking that the point remained at best uncertain. This is often all that the pseudo-scientist hopes for.

Now this is going on in climate change debates. It has also gone on in other subjects too. But somehow climate change seems to attract it more than other things.

It would be a shame to stop debating climate change on this board. Climate change is certainly part of planetary science and there are great many uncertainties in it, and frequent new scientific findings and evidence. The same kind of issues that lead to an understanding of the long term changes in our atmosphere are those that will help us develop understanding of what might have happened in the past on Mars, etc.

My personal view is that rather than focusing on climate change, rather the board should focus on people employing "pseudo-scientific argument techniques" in scientific threads. (I don't care if they are allowed to do it in ATM and CT.) Clearly there needs to be a degree of foregiveness because some people will from time to time do it through ignorance. But at some point we have to apply the Lady Bracknell Test (to lose one parent is a misfortune, but to lose both looks like sheer carelessness) and discipline people accordingly.

[captain swoop]

I don't care if they are allowed to do it in ATM and CT

Board rules are specific that it isn't allowed in ATM or CT, that's why the anti AGW advocates want the threads kept out of those two forums.

[nauthiz]

Maybe it's just the risk of being suspended from the board that is so threatening. How about we lighten the load and make the whole enterprise more fun by implementing a system of scoring and penalties instead? Y'know, using theoretically-grounded mathematical formulae to calculate predictions is worth two points, but citing timecube.com as a source will earn you five minutes in the penalty box. That sort of thing.

[Swift]

Ivan Viehoff,

First, a new post is absolutely fine. I'm not sure the thread had died, but it certainly had fallen asleep, and, as you said, without conclusion.

Personally (I am writing this bit not as a moderator), I think your analysis of the situation is probably correct. I think it is further complicated in that the posts using "pseudoscientific arguments" are probably reflective of a wide range of purposes and motivations, some perfectly innocent.

I will admit, that while I am broadly knowledgeable on the topic, I do not know it in the detail necessary so as to differentiate all the pseudoscience from the science, so as to properly moderate the discussion. I don't suspect anyone on the moderation team is.

The entire topic has been a point of discussion among the moderation team. Unfortunately, I do not see any significant consensus among us on a course of action, nor has there been any mandates on the topic from either Fraser or the BA, and so the status quo remains.