Fussy moderation in 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'

djpbarry

Ludo wrote: »

They appear the same to me and from a just looking at their categories, I would assume that the science one would be more demanding of sources and peer-reviews etc whereas the soc one would be more "chat" for want of a better term.

That’s pretty much the idea and I’ve spelled that out in the revised charter, but there’s obviously going to be a degree of overlap. I would view Environmental Science and Renewable Energies as being more specific than SEI. I would also state that I’m more concerned with the quality of discussion rather than the quantity, although large quantities of quality discussion would obviously be welcome.

djpbarry

Also, take note of promo sig in effort to increase traffic.

[latex]\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow[/latex]

nesf

djpbarry wrote: »

This is the balance that is tricky to strike. We want the forum to be somewhere people can either get advice on small day-to-day issues (like recycling, for example), discuss news events pertaining to sustainability/environmentalism, but also consider the big picture – for example, what’s happening at a policy level with regard to tackling climate change and how does it affect me (and/or, what can I do)? So, while we don’t expect everyone to be an expert and we certainly would not demand that all sources be peer-reviewed, there are technical issues being discussed, so the bar has to be kept high enough to keep a lid on the “climate change is bollocks” contributions, but not so high as to discourage people from posting and asking genuine questions – obviously we’ve not got it quite right just yet, but we’re trying to do something about it.

How about keeping the forum as a place to discuss how the policy decisions due to climate change will affect people but lump all the science scepticism stuff into Environmental Science?

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

How about keeping the forum as a place to discuss how the policy decisions due to climate change will affect people but lump all the science scepticism stuff into Environmental Science?

And overwhelm that forum's sole mod?

One problem is that a good deal of the "climate change is bollocks" stuff is not rooted in science: it's CT stuff.

More difficult is that there is a lot of stuff that dresses itself in white coats and pretends to be science. That's why there is a good reason for having a requirement that people should be able to back up claims by reference to peer-reviewed studies.

In my opinion, and I am not relating this to the S&EI forum or anybody who posts in it, pseudo-scientists can be among the most persistent and evasive contributors to debate, and can wreak havoc. One needs the tools to remove them.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And overwhelm that forum's sole mod?

One problem is that a good deal of the "climate change is bollocks" stuff is not rooted in science: it's CT stuff.

More difficult is that there is a lot of stuff that dresses itself in white coats and pretends to be science. That's why there is a good reason for having a requirement that people should be able to back up claims by reference to peer-reviewed studies.

In my opinion, and I am not relating this to the S&EI forum or anybody who posts in it, pseudo-scientists can be among the most persistent and evasive contributors to debate, and can wreak havoc. One needs the tools to remove them.

I'd concur but there is a debate in the public domain about the validity of climate change (even though it is not really warranted) and it is reasonable for people who don't have much education in the area to be taken in by it even if they are not contrarians.

easychair

nesf wrote: »

I'd concur but there is a debate in the public domain about the validity of climate change (even though it is not really warranted) and it is reasonable for people who don't have much education in the area to be taken in by it even if they are not contrarians.

I think its great that the mod in question has accepted that others have issues, and have been made to feel unwelcome. From what I've seen of these sorts of threads (which for some baffling reason scofflaw keeps telling me I am unable to read due to only being here for s few months, but seem to be here for me to read), it's unusual for a mod to do that. It takes a big man to admit they might not be perfect, so hats off to DJBarry.

I'm unsure why you think it unwarranted to have a debate about the validity of climate change? My view is that we should debate everything, and nothing should be above debate. While there is much evidence that the climate is changing, we have to remember that predictions about what will happen in the future are predictions.

Those who say "Climate change is not open to questions" are not that dissimilar to those who say "climate change is bollox" , as both display they have closed minds.

Here's a question. If one claims one is recycling a product (lets say an old pc), it is fair to say it is being recycled if only 1% is recycled, and 99% goes to landfill? Is it fair to say it is being recycled if only 1% is recycled, and 99% goes to landfill, which requires a lot of fossil fuels to ship it to, for example, China?

Green issues should be open to scrutiny and challenge, as every other topic is. There is humbug and hubris in the Green industry, and it should be exposed and discussed and debated.

My understanding from reading this is that the SEI threads are based on the understanding that anything calling itself green, or climate change, must be assumed to be good, right and proper, and no dissenting evidence will be allowed. If that is true (is it?), why should anyone think that a good thing?

nesf

easychair wrote: »

I think its great that the mod in question has accepted that others have issues, and have been made to feel unwelcome. From what I've seen of these sorts of threads (which for some baffling reason scofflaw keeps telling me I am unable to read due to only being here for s few months, but seem to be here for me to read), it's unusual for a mod to do that. It takes a big man to admit they might not be perfect, so hats off to DJBarry.

I'm unsure why you think it unwarranted to have a debate about the validity of climate change? My view is that we should debate everything, and nothing should be above debate. While there is much evidence that the climate is changing, we have to remember that predictions about what will happen in the future are predictions.

Those who say "Climate change is not open to questions" are not that dissimilar to those who say "climate change is bollox" , as both display they have closed minds.

Here's a question. If one claims one is recycling a product (lets say an old pc), it is fair to say it is being recycled if only 1% is recycled, and 99% goes to landfill? Is it fair to say it is being recycled if only 1% is recycled, and 99% goes to landfill, which requires a lot of fossil fuels to ship it to, for example, China?

Green issues should be open to scrutiny and challenge, as every other topic is. There is humbug and hubris in the Green industry, and it should be exposed and discussed and debated.

My understanding from reading this is that the SEI threads are based on the understanding that anything calling itself green, or climate change, must be assumed to be good, right and proper, and no dissenting evidence will be allowed. If that is true (is it?), why should anyone think that a good thing?

Bear in mind that I never said you were correct to challenge climate change (I think you're wrong, or at least the parts you're challenging is incorrect) and I did not say that you were being made feel unwelcome only that it was not unreasonable to be taken in by the anti- side of the debate if you're not particularly well educated (i.e. third level knowledge of climate science or mathematical modelling at least) about the matter which is no one's fault.

What I have a problem with is where people don't recant their views when presented with good evidence to the contrary.

ei.sdraob

even the polls are biased

nesf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

even the polls are biased

The poll wasn't added by the mods, what's your point? Part of the reason we only allow polls to be created by mods on Politics is precisely because people will bias the wording towards their position if given the chance. Or at least enough of them will for it to be a problem.

ei.sdraob

nesf wrote: »

The poll wasn't added by the mods, what's your point? Part of the reason we only allow polls to be created by mods on Politics is precisely because people will bias the wording towards their position if given the chance. Or at least enough of them will for it to be a problem.

You can edit thread titles but yet can you not add more options?

BryanF

easychair wrote: »

Those who say "Climate change is not open to questions" are not that dissimilar to those who say "climate change is bollox" , as both display they have closed minds.

Here's a question. If one claims one is recycling a product (lets say an old pc), it is fair to say it is being recycled if only 1% is recycled, and 99% goes to landfill? Is it fair to say it is being recycled if only 1% is recycled, and 99% goes to landfill, which requires a lot of fossil fuels to ship it to, for example, China?

Green issues should be open to scrutiny and challenge, as every other topic is. There is humbug and hubris in the Green industry, and it should be exposed and discussed and debated.

My understanding from reading this is that the SEI threads are based on the understanding that anything calling itself green, or climate change, must be assumed to be good, right and proper, and no dissenting evidence will be allowed. If that is true (is it?), why should anyone think that a good thing?

here we go..
in another ridiculous attempt to debunk climate change, we get a spat on recycling, brilliant analogy brilliant... please consider reading the following book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth before bringing up you conspiracy theories on climate change again.

when this poster is given given lengthy peer-reviewed explanations on such topics you just get more of this same nonsense.

mods apologies for going of topic and feel free to delete this post if its deemed inappropriate, but if were talking about moderation then the people bringing up this debate have to take some responsibility as well..

ei.sdraob

BryanF wrote: »

here we go..
in another ridiculous attempt to debunk climate change, we get a spat on recycling, brilliant analogy brilliant... please consider reading the following book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth before bringing up you conspiracy theories on climate change again.

when this poster is given given lengthy peer-reviewed explanations on such topics you just get more of this same nonsense.

mods apologies for going of topic and feel free to delete this post if its deemed inappropriate, but if were talking about moderation then the people bringing up this debate have to take some responsibility as well..

Dont moderators give a slap on a wrist when a "go read this book/article" style of post is made? or is it only for posts they dont agree with??

Anyways the book above has been criticised widely by economists for being too simplistic

nesf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You can edit thread titles but yet can you not add more options?

We can edit polls in threads. It's a matter of debate as to whether we should or not. If a poll is obviously biased, as that one is, it's meaningless and can be ignored pretty much so I personally wouldn't consider it a big deal unless someone tried to use it later on to prove a point about people's views on the topic.

easychair

nesf wrote: »

Bear in mind that I never said you were correct to challenge climate change (I think you're wrong, or at least the parts you're challenging is incorrect) and I did not say that you were being made feel unwelcome only that it was not unreasonable to be taken in by the anti- side of the debate if you're not particularly well educated (i.e. third level knowledge of climate science or mathematical modelling at least) about the matter which is no one's fault.

What I have a problem with is where people don't recant their views when presented with good evidence to the contrary.

Why I should bear that in mind, when I never claimed you said any such thing!

Are you saying, for example, that if someone says that there is a consensus in the scientific community, should they then list all those scientists who are part of the consensus, with their relevant qualifications?

I've noticed that its often claimed in SEI that there is, in the scientific world, a consensus (their isn't) and that because there is a consensus no one should be allowed challenge anything which is agreed by this bogus consensus.

I've never met an actual scientist who thinks consensus is good for science and for the advancement of knowledge.

If you now want to restrict (as you appear to be saying) the forum only to those with "third level knowledge of climate science or mathematical modelling", then you'll rule out the head of the IPCC, for a start!

What is interesting is that this thead has attracted an incredible number of responses in a few days.

My point was simply to tell of my experience, and to bring to the attention of others that the attitude of one moderator was contributing to the probelm which he highlighted in a thread on the SEI forum.

What appears to have come out of this thread is that no opinions are welcome in SEI unless they all agree with a group of scientists which someone considers forms a consensus, and that no scientific evidence will be allowed from any other scientists, no matter how well qualified, unless they agree with this arbitary, and bogus, consensus.

While I'm not advocating a pantomime of "oh yes it is oh no it isn't", to censor a forum and only allow views which are deemed to be the correct views, and banish all other views, even from eminent and highly qualified scientists, seems likely to turn the SEI forums into sterile and dull places.

Reading this now, i am beginning to doubt that I have read the situation correctly. Can someone advise if debate is welcome in SEI, or is SEI just looking for posts which all agree with each other?

nesf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Dont moderators give a slap on a wrist when a "go read this book/article" style of post is made?

Varies forum to forum. It really comes down to whether someone is taking the piss with it or not, i.e. saying I'm supported by this 300 page document but giving no clue as to where in the document the support is is being a dick and should (in my opinion) be clamped down upon.

BryanF

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Dont moderators give a slap on a wrist when a "go read this book/article" style of post is made? or is it only for posts they dont agree with??

Anyways the book above has been criticised widely by economists for being too simplistic

well I do apologise, I didn't feel it relevant to go into detail here...

nesf

easychair wrote: »

I've never met an actual scientist who thinks consensus is good for science and for the advancement of knowledge.

Consensus is normal in science. Otherwise the bickering would never stop and no one would get anything done or any policy decisions made. Think about it, scientists are a pretty contrary lot at the best of times, getting a large majority of them to agree on something is pretty bloody hard. Consensuses don't just magically spring up but are the work of decades of debate and research.

ei.sdraob

nesf wrote:

We can edit polls in threads. It's a matter of debate as to whether we should or not. If a poll is obviously biased, as that one is, it's meaningless and can be ignored pretty much so I personally wouldn't consider it a big deal unless someone tried to use it later on to prove a point about people's views on the topic.

It seems several members have pointed out in the thread that the poll is biased, it was neither edited, nor locked.

nesf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

It seems several members have pointed out in the thread that the poll is biased, it was neither edited, nor locked.

Does it need to be? Surely anyone with two braincells to rub together could see that it was biased and thus would just ignore it.

easychair

nesf wrote: »

Consensus is normal in science. Otherwise the bickering would never stop and no one would get anything done or any policy decisions made. Think about it, scientists are a pretty contrary lot at the best of times, getting a large majority of them to agree on something is pretty bloody hard. Consensuses don't just magically spring up but are the work of decades of debate and research.

I'm afraid you must talk to different scientists than I do.

While consensus may well sometimes occur, it should never used as a reason to suppress evidence one way or the other. It seems in SEI, you are saying that you are using what you see as consensus, as a means of only allowing views of which you approve, and censoring anyone else's views, even if they, for example, happen to be the views of a highly qualified individual with an interest in the field.

There is no such "consensus" among a number of highly qualified scientists across the world, and to appear to use a bogus consensus to censor views of which you disapprove, serves to stifle the debate, which appears to be the objective.

nesf

easychair wrote: »

I'm afraid you must talk to different scientists than I do.

While consensus may well sometimes occur, it should never used as a reason to suppress evidence one way or the other. It seems in SEI, you are saying that you are using what you see as consensus, as a means of only allowing views of which you approve, and censoring anyone else's views, even if they, for example, happen to be the views of a highly qualified individual with an interest in the field.

There is no such "consensus" among a number of highly qualified scientists across the world, and to appear to use a bogus consensus to censor views of which you disapprove, serves to stifle the debate, which appears to be the objective.

You're getting into conspiracy theory land there. It's hard to publish papers that say smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, is this a problem for you?

Scofflaw

I see we're now having the usual debate where "scientific consensus" is incorrectly claimed to mean "what scientists must agree to" rather than "what scientists do agree on" as well as "something 100% of scientists adhere to even if they're in different fields".

The consensus on climate change is an emergent result, not some kind of authoritarian diktat (there is no authority in science that could even give such a diktat). There are consensuses in many or even most areas of science - plate tectonics in geology, for example, evolution in biology - and those are somehow not regarded as threatening the future of those sciences (well, except by creationists, obviously).

This is exactly the kind of confusion, whether deliberate or accidental, that renders much of the 'debate on climate science' rather clearly semantic nit-pickery rather than scientific debate. Entirely worthless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

easychair

nesf wrote: »

You're getting into conspiracy theory land there. It's hard to publish papers that say smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, is this a problem for you?

The only problem for me is why you appear to want to talk about lung cancer. I never mentioned conspiracy theory, so what relevance it has is uncertain.

easychair

Scofflaw wrote: »

I see we're now having the usual debate where "scientific consensus" is incorrectly claimed to mean "what scientists must agree to" rather than "what scientists do agree on".

The consensus on climate change is an emergent result, not some kind of authoritarian diktat (there is no authority in science that could even give such a diktat). There are consensuses in many or even most areas of science - plate tectonics in geology, for example, evolution in biology - and those are somehow not regarded as threatening the future of those sciences (well, except by creationists, obviously).

This is exactly the kind of confusion, whether deliberate or accidental, that renders much of the 'debate on climate science' rather clearly semantic nit-pickery rather than scientific debate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I have no idea what the usual debate might, or might not, be.

I've merely asked for confirmation that the SEI is not to be open to anyone who does not agree with the consensus among scientists which you claim there to be. And that the only views you will allow there are ones which agree with this consensus.

P. Breathnach

easychair wrote: »

I have no idea what the usual debate might, or might not, be.

I've merely asked for confirmation that the SEI is not to be open to anyone who does not agree with the consensus among scientists which you claim there to be. And that the only views you will allow there are ones which agree with this consensus.

Ah come on! The intention in relation to the S&EI forum is patently obvious: you may challenge the scientific consensus, but by advancing arguments based on science, and which stand up to the sort of scrutiny that scientists employ.

ei.sdraob

nesf wrote: »

Does it need to be? Surely anyone with two braincells to rub together could see that it was biased and thus would just ignore it.

Ah I see what would happen if the likes of Scofflaw said "ignore" this poll here in politics forum where the only option is "Yes to Lisbon" or "Maybe"

by doing nothing you are showing your bias, why be a moderator if you do not wish to moderate? or as per thread title be "fussy"

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

I see we're now having the usual debate where "scientific consensus" is incorrectly claimed to mean "what scientists must agree to" rather than "what scientists do agree on" as well as "something 100% of scientists adhere to even if they're in different fields".

The consensus on climate change is an emergent result, not some kind of authoritarian diktat (there is no authority in science that could even give such a diktat). There are consensuses in many or even most areas of science - plate tectonics in geology, for example, evolution in biology - and those are somehow not regarded as threatening the future of those sciences (well, except by creationists, obviously).

This is exactly the kind of confusion, whether deliberate or accidental, that renders much of the 'debate on climate science' rather clearly semantic nit-pickery rather than scientific debate. Entirely worthless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Policies such as wanting to cover the country in windmills or make everyone pay for breathing, farting or trying to keep their home warm is a form of "diktat", and the Greens when in power have shown themselves quite willing to dictate and use their position in power to the detriment of the country and its people all in the name of the environment.

The policies are derived by politicians and activists based on underlying scientific consensus, Like I mentioned earlier in thread the job of scientists is to research, report and model it is not their job to develop technologies (thats what engineers are for) neither is it their job to formulate policies (thats where businesspeople and politicians come in) nor push an agenda

Questioning and pointing out that some policies are a bad idea is quickly turned into "you global warming denialist, don't you want to do good to the planet, you bad bad person shame on you"

nesf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Ah I see what would happen if the likes of Scofflaw said "ignore" this poll here in politics forum where the only option is "Yes to Lisbon" or "Maybe"

by doing nothing you are showing your bias, why be a moderator if you do not wish to moderate? or as per thread title be "fussy"

It's up to the mods whether they want to police polls heavily or not. In Politics they're policed heavily, in other forums they're not. Personally I think they should be policed but I'm not going to force Soc mods to tow the line here because I think it's a relatively minor point.

nesf

easychair wrote: »

The only problem for me is why you appear to want to talk about lung cancer. I never mentioned conspiracy theory, so what relevance it has is uncertain.

It's a scientific consensus, you seem to have a problem with all consensuses, or at least that's how you're arguing.

Amateurish

easychair wrote: »

I think its great that the mod in question has accepted that others have issues, and have been made to feel unwelcome. From what I've seen of these sorts of threads (which for some baffling reason scofflaw keeps telling me I am unable to read due to only being here for s few months, but seem to be here for me to read), it's unusual for a mod to do that. It takes a big man to admit they might not be perfect, so hats off to DJBarry.

I'm unsure why you think it unwarranted to have a debate about the validity of climate change? My view is that we should debate everything, and nothing should be above debate. While there is much evidence that the climate is changing, we have to remember that predictions about what will happen in the future are predictions.

Those who say "Climate change is not open to questions" are not that dissimilar to those who say "climate change is bollox" , as both display they have closed minds.

Here's a question. If one claims one is recycling a product (lets say an old pc), it is fair to say it is being recycled if only 1% is recycled, and 99% goes to landfill? Is it fair to say it is being recycled if only 1% is recycled, and 99% goes to landfill, which requires a lot of fossil fuels to ship it to, for example, China?

Green issues should be open to scrutiny and challenge, as every other topic is. There is humbug and hubris in the Green industry, and it should be exposed and discussed and debated.

My understanding from reading this is that the SEI threads are based on the understanding that anything calling itself green, or climate change, must be assumed to be good, right and proper, and no dissenting evidence will be allowed. If that is true (is it?), why should anyone think that a good thing?

Debate on climate change is no longer unwarranted, there's a new megathread, healthy debate welcome there. I would think the mountain of research on climate change is as a direct result of questioning the consensus no?
Sustainability is plagued by worries like the recycling one you mention, such as damage producing raw materials for batteries for elec cars, pma components, energy producing pv silicon, wind farms in scenic areas or protected habitats. If you feel DjpBarry et al are full of brown stuff, prove it but with decent reason, not 'climate change is sh1te cos its cold in july' as you recently did.