Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fussy moderation in 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'
Options
Comments
-
No one is restricting you from taking part in any thread but for very practical and logical reasons that have been discussed earlier in this thread, it makes sense to have every other thread discussed on the basis that humans contribute significantly to climate change.
Should, then, we allow threads based on the assumption that the theory of gravity should be ignored? Or any other scientific consensus? Having the mega thread acknowledges and facilitates debate on the scientific consensus of climate change but keeps it at a practical level.
That you liken the "evidence" for gravity to be on a par with the level and standard of evidence for AGW is where we differ.
I don't know any scientists who don't agree that gravity exists, and can be, and had been, demonstrated for hundreds of years now. The theory of gravity doesn't predict the future, it merely explains a phenomenon we can all experience.
AGW is attempting to predict the future, and there are many serious scientists who question the whole basis for AGW, the methadology, the modelling and so on.
Lets be clear about the definition of that little word "consensus" which has been used many times. While it cleverly sounds as if "consensus" means every scientist is in broad agreement, in fact it is a term which has been coined to hide the fact that there are a lot of good scientists who are not in agreement with the AGW theories.
That's not to say AGW won't eventually be proved to be correct. It may be. Or it may not be.
And its fine for you to decide that, on the SEI forums, you will only allow views on the threads which have the underlying assumption that AGW will be proved to be correct. There is a good case for AGW, but it's far from being proved in the way gravity is universally accepted. At this point AGW is not universally accepted by scientists, so to restrict all the SEI threads (except 1) to ignore that, which is what you appear to be saying, is folly.
I'm not afraid of debate, as by debate we learn. By restricting debate to only reflect your personal views, and seeking to restrict anyone who might not agree with your views, will not lead to a better debate or forum.0 -
From the forum charter:
[Emphasis mine.]Scope of this Forum
S&EI is a forum for the discussion of political, scientific and general day-to-day topics falling under the broad headings of Environmentalism and Sustainability. For threads specifically on the practical aspects of renewable energy installations (wind turbines, solar panels, etc.), you may consider the Renewable Energies Forum more appropriate. For more rigorous scientific debate, you might try Environmental Science.
That looks clear enough to me. Debating the fundamentals belongs elsewhere.
I am not a professional scientist, but I have an interest in how we humans impact on our environment. I accept the consensus that many people contest does not exist. That acceptance influences many of my actions. So I should be interested in the S&EI forum. But I don't participate there. The main reason is that some people choose to make it a battleground, and the bases on which they challenge are often very questionable. I'm not interested in engaging with people who I consider to be cranks.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
With respect, this particular thread is not about noise from wind turbines.Chloe Pink wrote: »Like noise from wind turbines perhaps Macha (post 210)?
I think that it is definitely a good idea in certain situations but I'm not going to back to a CMod for a moderation decision for every thread I post in as a regular poster. If moderation of SEI comes to this, I'd rather just step down.Chloe Pink wrote: »Posting and modding simultaneously
Macha and djpbarry, I think this offer from the Cat Mods would definitely help to address these scenarios. What do you think?
Before I was asked to be a mod, SEI was the main forum I posted in. I post in a few others but SEI is still the main forum in which I'm interested.
Well having been accused of fussy moderation, I'm not sure that getting involved in wording the polls would be considered a positive step. If you think the poll is biased, why not just state that in the thread and set up a new poll if you so wish?Chloe Pink wrote: »Polls
Macha and djpbarry, as “perceived” bias (or otherwise) has been raised as an issue in this thread and on the SEI forum, perhaps this minor bit of work on the odd occasion that polls are set up, would be worth doing. What do you think?
Well plenty of farmers around the world who don't know when to plant anymore might challenge the assertion that we can't experience climate change.That you liken the "evidence" for gravity to be on a par with the level and standard of evidence for AGW is where we differ.
I don't know any scientists who don't agree that gravity exists, and can be, and had been, demonstrated for hundreds of years now. The theory of gravity doesn't predict the future, it merely explains a phenomenon we can all experience.
I've made my position clear but it isn't actually up to me. It's the mod of this forum, Overheal, and the CMods that decide this (unless I'm mistaken).
If I'm not mistaken (again), the only point of science that must be agreed on in other threads is that humans are contributing significantly to climate change (and that climate change is happening). And so details like the extent of future changes etc are open for debate.AGW is attempting to predict the future, and there are many serious scientists who question the whole basis for AGW, the methadology, the modelling and so on.0 -
With respect, it is not to discuss wind turbines that I made the point; it was to do with bias.With respect, this particular thread is not about noise from wind turbines.
Being bias is part of human behaviour, it's hard if not impossible to avoid which is why I feel that modding and discussing simultaneously in a thread, have to be handled carefully.
I do realise that to call on a cat mod in every such scenario would be excessive but I think that making as much use of their offer as is feasible is a good idea and I thank you for your response.
I did in the carbon tax thread, along with half a dozen or so other people.If you think the poll is biased, why not just state that in the thread0 -
Well plenty of farmers around the world who don't know when to plant anymore might challenge the assertion that we can't experience climate change.
"Plenty of farmers"? The IPCC has claimed that the increase in temperature over the last one hundred hears has been 0.74° C. And you are suggesting that due to an increase over 100 years of 0.74°C, there are "plently of farmers" who don't know when to plant anymore?
Are you suggesting that plenty of farmers are so thrown by an increase in temperatures of 0.74°C over a one hundred year span, that they are unable to know when is the right time to plant crops?
Can you tell us what happens their farms? Are they left idle with no crops planted? Or do neighbouring farmers, who do know when to plant crops, help out?
Apologies for the sarcasm, but it is hard to believe that there are many farmers who are running around like headless chickens and unable to plant crops due to an increase , over 100 years, of 0.74°C.
All of which appears to let you sidestep the fact that AGW is not universally accepted by scientists, and that no one, not even any of the eminent scientists who question AGW would be allowed to post in SEI because they don't agree with your rule that in the SEI forums, all debate will be based on the assumption that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing significantly.0 -
Advertisement
-
"Plenty of farmers"? The IPCC has claimed that the increase in temperature over the last one hundred hears has been 0.74° C. And you are suggesting that due to an increase over 100 years of 0.74°C, there are "plently of farmers" who don't know when to plant anymore?
Are you suggesting that plenty of farmers are so thrown by an increase in temperatures of 0.74°C over a one hundred year span, that they are unable to know when is the right time to plant crops?
Can you tell us what happens their farms? Are they left idle with no crops planted? Or do neighbouring farmers, who do know when to plant crops, help out?
Apologies for the sarcasm, but it is hard to believe that there are many farmers who are running around like headless chickens and unable to plant crops due to an increase , over 100 years, of 0.74°C.
That's the sort of argument that puts me off participating in S&EI.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
It isn't the increase in temperature, it's the change in climate. That is why we don't talk about global warming, we talk about climate change - the changes are more complex than just an increase in temperature. Less snow fall can impact on snow melts that farmers depend on, for example."Plenty of farmers"? The IPCC has claimed that the increase in temperature over the last one hundred hears has been 0.74° C. And you are suggesting that due to an increase over 100 years of 0.74°C, there are "plently of farmers" who don't know when to plant anymore?
Are you suggesting that plenty of farmers are so thrown by an increase in temperatures of 0.74°C over a one hundred year span, that they are unable to know when is the right time to plant crops?
I think we need to acknowledge how complex the world's climate systems are and what can happen if they are thrown out of kilter.
Here is an accessible report of the types of challenges for farmers in the developing world:Can you tell us what happens their farms? Are they left idle with no crops planted? Or do neighbouring farmers, who do know when to plant crops, help out?
Apologies for the sarcasm, but it is hard to believe that there are many farmers who are running around like headless chickens and unable to plant crops due to an increase , over 100 years, of 0.74°C.
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/articles/climate-change-affecting-peru-right-nowAll of which appears to let you sidestep the fact that AGW is not universally accepted by scientists, and that no one, not even any of the eminent scientists who question AGW would be allowed to post in SEI because they don't agree with your rule that in the SEI forums, all debate will be based on the assumption that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing significantly.
But what is your definition of "universally accepted"? We're talking about scientific theories not mathematical laws. You have to go by the weight of evidence not wait for some sort of absolute truth.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »That's the sort of argument that puts me off participating in S&EI.
Same here.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
It isn't the increase in temperature, it's the change in climate. That is why we don't talk about global warming, we talk about climate change - the changes are more complex than just an increase in temperature. Less snow fall can impact on snow melts that farmers depend on, for example.
I think we need to acknowledge how complex the world's climate systems are and what can happen if they are thrown out of kilter.
Here is an accessible report of the types of challenges for farmers in the developing world:
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/articles/climate-change-affecting-peru-right-now
Farmers have always found farming challenging, but to claim, as you have. that there is now a new phenomenon which is caused by either AGW or climate change, and leads directly to " plenty of farmers around the world who don't know when to plant anymore" is hard to believe.
But what is your definition of "universally accepted"? We're talking about scientific theories not mathematical laws. You have to go by the weight of evidence not wait for some sort of absolute truth.
Consensus in the scientific community had been invoked in this thread and the reason given why it's ok, and reasonable, to not allow anyone to post in SEI unless they post from the standpoint that "Debate ... will be based on the assumption that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing significantly".
The term "consensus" papers over the fact that there are distinguished, and respected, scientists, from around the world, who disagree with your view. There are others who agree with your view.
That you want to ban the former from SEI, and only allow those who agree with this particular view, that "Debate ... will be based on the assumption that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing significantly", is your choice. It's also important that anyone posting there understands that the views of anyone who disagrees with this particular view which all the mods etc hold, will not be allowed.0 -
The term "consensus" doesn't paper over anything. It doesn't imply that every single scientist either does or should adhere to the "consensus view" - but the existence of a consensus view in science is a meaningful thing that cannot simply be dismissed because you happen to disagree with it. There are quite high profile opponents of evolution, but it would be ludicrous to describe the consensus on evolution as anything but a consensus, or dismiss it because it doesn't cover 100% of scientists.
I can see that this mega-thread is going to very rapidly resemble the "Bible, Creationism and Prophecy" thread.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 6185
I think you find it hard to believe for other reasons but the farmers themselves don't seem to have any difficulty. I gave you evidence and I am not surprised in the slightest that you haven't accepted it.Farmers have always found farming challenging, but to claim, as you have. that there is now a new phenomenon which is caused by either AGW or climate change, and leads directly to " plenty of farmers around the world who don't know when to plant anymore" is hard to believe.
But then again, that's the definition of a denialist: it doesn't matter what evidence is presented to you, you're not going to change your mind. That's fair enough but I don't want the SEI forum dragged down by this poor quality of debate, hence restricting it to the megathead. I'll also add that the megathread makes sense from a practical point of view because the alternative is that each OP has to declare either way and I would have to police the whole thread to ensure it doesn't become a big ACC debate.
I've already clarified a few times that it isn't my decision so I'd appreciate you could acknowledge that in your wording.That you want to ban the former from SEI, and only allow those who agree with this particular view, that "Debate ... will be based on the assumption that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing significantly", is your choice. It's also important that anyone posting there understands that the views of anyone who disagrees with this particular view which all the mods etc hold, will not be allowed.0 -
It isn't the increase in temperature, it's the change in climate. That is why we don't talk about global warming, we talk about climate change - the changes are more complex than just an increase in temperature.
Then perhaps the Forum Charter needs to be reworded to better reflect 'exactly what the scientific consensus to be taken as fact', is because currently it defines it in terms of the 'observed upward trend in global temperatures':
From the Forum Charter:
"Discussion of Climate Change or Related Subjects
For the purposes of most discussion on this forum, to prevent the same arguments being rehashed in multiple threads, the scientific consensus on the subject of climate change is taken as fact. That is (as per the IPCC, NASA, etc.), that mankind is most likely responsible for the observed upward trend in global temperatures over the last century or so. However, whether you agree or disagree with the consensus, you are free to discuss the subject in the appropriate mega-thread here. Discussion of the scientific consensus on climate change outside of this thread is not permitted."
At least then, the terms of participation on the forum are clear for all concerned.
The other discrepancy between the Forum charter and the OP of the CC mega thread is in the phrases "that mankind is most likely responsible" and "humans are contributing significantly"; they have different meanings.
The words from the OP of the CC mega thread and the Forum Charter maybe ought to be aligned.
The OP of the CC mega thread :
"The issue of climate change and how much humans are contributing is a subject that comes up frequently in this forum.
The debate can take over other threads and so we are creating this megathread for all debate on climate change. All other threads started for this purpose will be locked.
Debate in all other threads will be based on the assumption that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing significantly."
The other point that isn't clear in the Forum Charter and the OP of the CC mega thread, and that I think should be, is that "details like the extent of future changes etc are open for debate" (assuming Macha's recollection is correct).
Macha post 364:
"If I'm not mistaken (again), the only point of science that must be agreed on in other threads is that humans are contributing significantly to climate change (and that climate change is happening). And so details like the extent of future changes etc are open for debate.
I don't know anyone who says climate change isn't happenning, so it appears to date from this thread, that the emphasis in the forum charter and OP of the CC mega thread needs to be on
- the "assumption that humans are contributing significantly to climate change"
- and that "the extent of climate change itself may be discussed in all other threads"
- but that "the extent of human contribution to climate change may only be discussed in the
mega thread".
The problem with with your last link Macha http://www.oxfamamerica.org/articles...peru-right-now maybe that although it provides first hand evidence of climate change, it provides no evidence regarding mans hand in it.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
I missed out the word "just" - it was a typo. You don't need to jump on absolutely everything other people post - it's a very aggressive debating style.0 -
I missed out the word "just" - it was a typo. You don't need to jump on absolutely everything other people post - it's a very aggressive debating style.
This doesn't resolve the anomolies and lack of clarity in the Forum Charter and the CC mega thread OP.
I'm suprised at your accusatory response; the intention was not to be aggressive it was to ensure clarity about the new rules on the Forum. I would have thought you'd want that.0 -
Chloe Pink wrote: »I'm suprised at your accusatory response; the intention was not to be aggressive it was to ensure clarity about the new rules on the Forum. I would have thought you'd want that.
I read it as accusatory and harranging. Perhaps you need to rethink how you word your posts and their formatting if you don't mean to come across that way?0 -
A forum charter is a general guide, and should not need to be worked over with the same close attention to detail as drafting a piece of legislation that might lead to a person being imprisoned. If that sort of effort appears to be necessary, I would think it is because of the actions of people who are inimical to the purpose of the forum.
Perhaps I am a bit soured by the widespread use of non-science or nonsense arguments advanced in science debate, and the apparent expectation that they be given equal weight.
It might be more effective to cull the forum.0 -
I read it as accusatory and harranging. Perhaps you need to rethink how you word your posts and their formatting if you don't mean to come across that way?
I'm trying to point out that if the rules aren't clear to posters and if Macha and djpbarry have different perceptions or different ways of describing what the rules are, confusion is more than likely to follow somewhere down the line.
Again, it's the same old story, rather than look at the issue being raised, it's seems it's easier for the powers that be to put down the poster.
The post wasn't aimed specifically at Macha, it's purpose was to ensure clarity about the new rules on the Forum, which as Macha stated, were are not decided by him.
What on earth would have been wrong with saying, 'umm, thanks, we'd better look at this again'?
Thanks for the feedback re your perception of my posting style, I'll give it some consideration.0 -
Chloe Pink wrote: »I'm trying to point out that if the rules aren't clear to posters and if Macha and djpbarry have different perceptions or different ways of describing what the rules are, confusion is more than likely to follow somewhere down the line.
Again, it's the same old story, rather than look at the issue being raised, it's seems it's easier for the powers that be to put down the poster.
The post wasn't aimed specifically at Macha, it's purpose was to ensure clarity about the new rules on the Forum, which as Macha stated, were are not decided by him.
What on earth would have been wrong with saying, 'umm, thanks, we'd better look at this again'?
Thanks for the feedback re your perception of my posting style, I'll give it some consideration.
The issue is your style of post, you don't make it clear you're not attacking the mods. Reword it as "maybe we need to reword the charter because it appears to say X" and you have a post that can't be misread as being an attack rather than being helpful.
This isn't "putting down the poster" it's pointing out that you may not be coming across like you mean to with the way you write your posts at the moment.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »A forum charter is a general guide, and should not need to be worked over with the same close attention to detail as drafting a piece of legislation that might lead to a person being imprisoned.
I find that a strange comparison. My thoughts are that if the Forum Charter is clear and unambiguous, it gives people the freedom to enter discussion within the boundaries. As it stands, that freedom is not being offered because the boundaries are not clear.
Further more, some of the posters on this thread have raised issue with the Forum Charter.
It's the easy option I guess.P. Breathnach wrote: »It might be more effective to cull the forum.0 -
The issue is your style of post, you don't make it clear you're not attacking the mods. Reword it as "maybe we need to reword the charter because it appears to say X" and you have a post that can't be misread as being an attack rather than being helpful.
This isn't "putting down the poster" it's pointing out that you may not be coming across like you mean to with the way you write your posts at the moment.
Fine, I've said thank you and that I'll consider the matter.
Now what about the issues that have been raised.0 -
Advertisement
-
Chloe Pink wrote: »Fine, I've said thank you and that I'll consider the matter, now what about the issues that have been raised.
I don't write or control the charter of the SEI forum, so I'm not in a position to change anything.0 -
-
I find the Forum fine, the nature of the area it covers attracts a variety of different people, some with an agenda and questionable understanding of the sciences involved. One biased science paper or a youtube video does not make a valid argument. Just look at politics.ie enviromental forum and its moderation standard and you will easily see what a good job Macha and djbarry are doing here.0
-
Chloe Pink wrote: »Who does and is then please?
It doesn't exclude you from offering a view though, if you wanted to.
The mods do, thus why Macha took umbrage with your post.
I have expressed a view earlier and said I thought the charter should be rewritten for clarity's sake.0 -
But then again, that's the definition of a denialist: it doesn't matter what evidence is presented to you, you're not going to change your mind.
I've already stated my position, but if you have to misinterpret that and start to call me names, then that's your choice.
I hope SEI recovers from its quiet period, and I have already said that I think the restrictions on discussion will make the forum one sided and biased, for the reasons already explained.
I think its incredible that you think it's fine to censor the views of even eminent scientists, who have spent their lives examining the subject, because they don't agree with you, and I can't think of many who would want to participate in such a forum, except to discuss frothy topics is a superficial way.
However, those are the rules you have either made, or are promoting.
I've already clarified a few times that it isn't my decision so I'd appreciate you could acknowledge that in your wording.
Ironically, I've also said a number of times that I am open minded about AGW, but that didn't stop you calling me a "denialist".
And of course I accept what you say. I wasn't discussing who wrote it, and was discussing what was written.
I wish the SEI forums well and hope they thrive.0 -
Thank you nesf.
I'd be interested to know if you think it's clear enough now that it has been rewritten.
IMO it would be good if there was some clarity on who is responsible for the deciding and writing the forum charter etc because Macha seems to be saying it's not him in post 372 (if I'm not mistaken).0 -
Corsendonk wrote: »I find the Forum fine, the nature of the area it covers attracts a variety of different people, some with an agenda and questionable understanding of the sciences involved. One biased science paper or a youtube video does not make a valid argument. Just look at politics.ie enviromental forum and its moderation standard and you will easily see what a good job Macha and djbarry are doing here.
That's good Corsendonk but unfortunately quite a number of posters and some mods feel there are/were issues with the forum and the moderating hence this lengthy thread.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Hence it was revised. I don't see a great number of posters clamouring for it to be revised again.Chloe Pink wrote: »That's good Corsendonk but unfortunately quite a number of posters and some mods feel there are/were issues with the forum and the moderating hence this lengthy thread.
Re: writing the forum charter, my response in post 372 is in relation to the decision off the back of this thread to have a megathread and keep discussion of ACC within that and keep the rest of the forum free from that particular debate.
I don't think we need to write in who is responsible for writing the charter - every other forum has survived without it thus far perfectly well and I'm sure SEI will as well.0 -
Mods restrict discussion to specific threads all the time. It’s not censorship, it’s moderation.I think its incredible that you think it's fine to censor the views of even eminent scientists...
But anyway, Go ahead and list said scientists and why we should listen to them. If you're so sure of your convictions, you should have no trouble formulating a coherent argument.0 -
Advertisement
-
Chloe Pink wrote: »That's good Corsendonk but unfortunately quite a number of posters and some mods feel there are/were issues with the forum and the moderating hence this lengthy thread.
Dominated by, in fact, only a couple of posters, primarily yourself. And virtually every poster except yourself has the same basic problem - they want to be allowed to post well-worn arguments claiming climate change doesn't exist.
And just to hammer that point home, this is from the Creationism thread:I would disagree. There is an historical extrapolation on which the theory of macro evolution is based that is not present in many other aspects of science. In many ways the theory of evolution, as explaining the origins of man, is biology attempting to do history. A valid enough enterprise, but not in the same field as electromagnetism, or jet propulsion. One examines what is seen in the present and applies it to the present. The other examines what is seen in the present and attempts to apply it to the past.
Exactly the same argument as has been presented here. You'll also find the argument that there isn't truly a consensus on evolution, because there are "prominent scientists" who disagree with it, and so on:When it comes to equally qualified scientists disputing the science, I tend to trust those whom I know to be honest men. I know some such Christians, so I give their witness strong credibility.
And the same conspiracy theories:I doubt the scientific establishment would be keen to admit to government influence on their scientific beliefs. But who runs the nations really? The governments, or the elites who control business and military complexes? The ideology of the people or the ideology of the elite?
Really, if the climate change denialist position is to be given credence, surely the Creationist position should be given equal billing?
cordially,
Scofflaw0
Advertisement