Fussy moderation in 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

I was referring to posters as the authority. Not treating the IPCC as an authority on climate science is a bit like disputing the Pope's authority on Catholicism.

Really.
There was I thinking that science was all about constant questioning and reassessment.
Once upon a time authority said the world was flat; once upon a time authority said take thalidomide tablets; once upon a time authority said the world was cooling etc

If the IPCC is not to be disputed, how come Hugh Sharman's ICE Telford Gold Winning Paper and other similar ones can be categorised as "crap" without even being disputed.

IMO, there is definitely a problem around here

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Really.
There was I thinking that science was all about constant questioning and reassessment.
Once upon a time authority said the world was flat; once upon a time authority said take thalidomide tablets; once upon a time authority said the world was cooling etc

If the IPCC is not to be disputed, how come Hugh Sharman's ICE Telford Gold Winning Paper and other similar ones can be categorised as "crap" without even being disputed.

IMO, there is definitely a problem around here

Science is about informed questioning and dissent, not merely any bull**** pulled out of the air by people. The serious debate has been going on well over 20 years with a lot of questioning, dissent and dissection and at the end of it they produced a document they could agree on on climate change. You need to be seriously well informed to challenge such a document in a worthwhile way.

Wibbs

djpbarry wrote: »

We are not above criticism, but comments such as “This whole forum is crap” are not exactly constructive, so I thought it best to close the thread.

I agree, but rather than get red card happy and close the thread why not moderate it back to relevant discussion as to ways to make the forum better? There were some good suggestions in the first page. Cutting off any discussion of moderation is hardly helpful if said moderation is in question and it should always be IMHO. I fcuk up, you fcuk up. We can conjugate to fcuk up all day. And that's grand. So long as the discussion is civil of course. Firing a red card at the first poster to get one seems bloody excessive and supercilious to me.

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't see that as any different from the repetitive eruptions in TLL of misogynistic trolling and claims that the very existence of a forum primarily for women is a travesty of fair play, or the atheists who get slung out of Christianity for telling Christians they're deluded paedophiles, the idiots who get slung out of the Islam forum because they want to use the forum to replay "the clash of civilisations", the occasional troll who wanders into rail forums to say that anyone who doesn't go everywhere by car is a loonie, the people who insist on making every Irish political thread a reprise of the Troubles...etc etc.

Nope, doesn't quite fly for me and considering the recent guff tLL has gotten... TLL is for women. Christianity is for Christians, Islam is for... well Muslims and so on. The clue is in the titles. The clue is not in the title of 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'. If it were 'Sustainability & Environmental issues but only from a Green acceptable viewpoint, thanks very much' then game ball. And that's cool and the gang if that's what the regulars want. Issues have both sides so if you don't want to have one side coming in, rather than getting heavyhanded and supercilious about the whole thing spell that out in the charter. Then get heavyhanded if need be. I've read the charter and I don't see any mention of this(I do see mention of the citations please part*, but I have noted that there's more "linkehs please" called for on the nay side than the aye side). Oh yea like all those above forums you reference do. Indeed if you recall both of us fell afoul of the Islam forum doing exactly what we're berating some users here for. Seem's a bit daft to have an "X issues" type forum where only one issue is allowed.

nesf wrote:

I was referring to posters as the authority. Not treating the IPCC as an authority on climate science is a bit like disputing the Pope's authority on Catholicism.

OK take that analogy further. The pope may be an authority on one form of Christianity, but not the whole of the christian faith. Many differ. If a poster was banned from christianity for referencing Martin Luther then questions might be asked. Like I say I think it's the title and lack of charter clarity that's at fault here. Not the moderation as such. Yes the moderation can come across as toys outa the pram high and mighty at times, but that's because they're trying to defend the position of them and their forum. IE if tLL had nothing in the charter about blokes trolling or hoving into view and posting about "we have it so hard too" the mods of tLL would only have themselves to blame.




*which BTW S I'm fully in agreement with. Boards as a whole needs more ,way more of that. Too many forums have become opinion not facts, or even informed opinion in the last couple of years. In some cases rendering some forums hard going to actually get good information.

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Oh so you can call a scientific paper "crap"...

I believe I gave my reasons for questioning the validity of the publication in question.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

...but someone else can't call the forum "crap"

They can if they want, but they better have reasons for doing so.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

To the thread you're referring to re the perma-ban...

I re-produced ei.sdraob final post in the forum above – (s)he was not banned for that single post, but for a whole series of posts across multiple threads.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

How many times are you going to ask this question. I'm sure you know gthe incident posters are referring to - the thread was closed which is as good as banning people from the thread i.e. they can't comment

Banning people and closing threads are not in any way equivalent.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Look I'm know it would have been better if folks were more accurate in their recounting of incidents but the incident remains; a feedback thread on the forum was closed...

Having been open for about 18 months – the OP was no longer relevant and given the nature of the last few posts, I felt it time to close it.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

If the IPCC is not to be disputed...

Dispute it all you want as long as you do it in a rational manner. There’s a whole thread on the subject here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055802206

themandan6611 wrote: »

How much of the problem is due to the choice of tone being used by the mods ?.

From looking at this thread and some in the S&E forum, while maybe not intentional, the style / tone used whilst steering the debates could be be taken the wrong way.

Sometimes its easier to be direct and straight to the point, which is fine, but maybe more time / thought should go into mods responses.

E-mail can be a dangerous - people read things differently to how they would receive the message verbally

Thanks for the constructive feedback – your comments have been noted.

nesf

Wibbs wrote: »

OK take that analogy further. The pope may be an authority on one form of Christianity, but not the whole of the christian faith. Many differ.

The analogy doesn't work, it's extremely, extremely hard to find a climate scientist of good standing who disputes the consensus. There is vast agreement between scientists about it, which is not something that happens easily or trivially.

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

Science is about informed questioning and dissent, not merely any bull**** pulled out of the air by people. The serious debate has been going on well over 20 years with a lot of questioning, dissent and dissection and at the end of it they produced a document they could agree on on climate change. You need to be seriously well informed to challenge such a document in a worthwhile way.

And I would add, you need to be seriously well informed to hold it up as gospel.

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

And I would add, you need to be seriously well informed to hold it up as gospel.

What would your solution be to the challenge of preventing every climate-change/carbon-related post becoming a debate on AGW?

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

I believe I gave my reasons for questioning the validity of the publication in question.

They didn't really hold any water, something about who he'd worked for I recall; like all your evidence comes from completely unbias sources.

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

Says the poster who registered in March. Hmm....

.

What relevance it has when a poster registered has to his ability to look back at a forum a couple of years ago has, I'm not sure.

But it does conveniently allow you to ignore the question.

djpbarry wrote: »

I fail to see the problem.

I think we all realise that.

I've looked back at the Sustainabilty & Environmental threads going back some time, as it's obvious to anyone who looks that the forums now are much quieter than they have been in the past. For me, that's sad, and the reason why is obvious, and has now been stated here a number of times.

Rather than considering whether any posters here have a point, you try to divert the attention into claiming its all about how many posters have been banned. The point is not how many have been banned, but how many have decided to quietly move away after they have been berated by you, had their posts trivialised, nitpicked, and then been personally attacked. The fact is that many find the Sustainabilty & Environmental threads hostile and unfriendly places, where they are treated like naughty children to be scolded at every opportunity, and then ridiculed and berated if they don't agree with your opinions.

Additionally, you pretend to take parts in a debate with one poster or other, then don your moderators hat when you don't like what they say, or if they refuse to agree with you or be quietened by your bullying, and threaten you them in your bold print. How you can expect any normally intelligent adult to want to engage with someone who does that is beyone belief. I've tried a number of times to engage with you, and it's always ended up with you being hostile and unfriendly, if not with you donning your moderators hat and threatening me because I don't agree with all your views.

I really have better things to do than engage with someone who behaves like that, and I know form my conversations with others, and from the views expressed here, that many others feel likewise. I treat everyone else with dignity and respect, and I find your aggressive nature on the Sustainabilty & Environmental threads not to my taste.

I think it's clear from the manner of your responses here that it's unlikely you'll take any of this on board, which is sad but its your life. I am sad that I often find myself wanting to post there, but don't go through with it because I am certain it will provoke you to become once more unfriendly, aggressive and hostile.

It takes all sorts to make a world and, for me, I have no wish to invite unfriendliness, hostility and aggression into my life, which is what I often experience from you when I try to put a toe into the water of the Sustainabilty & Environmental threads. I know I am not alone in my experience, as I have read many of the posts in this thread, and have spoken to others who find you similarly unfriendly, aggressive and hostile.

I don't pretend to speak for them, and only speak for myself, and certainly it's unlikely I'll be participating much in Sustainabilty & Environmental threads due to your behaviour there.

My hope is that you eventually get some insight into this unfriendly, aggressive and hostile behaviour, and that Sustainabilty & Environmental threads once more becomes a fun place to visit, and in which to post.

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

And I would add, you need to be seriously well informed to hold it up as gospel.

That stance makes little to no sense. It's about as useful a stance as refusing any medical treatment you don't understand everything about, like not taking paracetamol for a headache because you're not familiar with the pharmacology involved in the metabolism of the drug. Existing in the modern world presupposes you trusting some authorities for expert information you can't provide yourself, for the vast, vast majority of us we don't have enough knowledge, training and experience to study climate change ourselves so we need a group like the IPCC to do it for us.

Yitzhak Rabin

nesf wrote: »

And that pretty much sums up my "minor issue" mentioned earlier. Tone is important but a side issue here though, far more serious claims have been made about the moderators.

Just for the record.

I believe the problem with the forum is the tone taken by the moderator. The high and mighty school-teacher approach, which rubs people up the wrong way.There is a place for that (trolls etc.) but there is no need for it to be used on well meaning and intelligent posters.

I also believe that the mods interject and steer the debate too often. Its particularly unwelcome when they are participating in the thread.

But I don't think there is any form of 'bullying' going on. Thats a serious allegation, and shouldn't just be bandied about willy-nilly.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

What would your solution be to the challenge of preventing every climate-change/carbon-related post becoming a debate on AGW?

Whenever it occurred, saying something along the lines of "There is a thread here (provide link) to discuss AGW but for the purpose of this particular discussion thread, please can we assume that AGW is happenning and that we need to tackle it and stick to the thread topic."

Or of course in a reverse scenario, "There is a thread here (provide link) to discuss AGW but for the purpose of this particular discussion thread, please can we assume that AGW is not happenning and that we don't need to tackle it and stick to the thread topic."

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote:

Nope, doesn't quite fly for me and considering the recent guff tLL has gotten... TLL is for women. Christianity is for Christians, Islam is for... well Muslims and so on. The clue is in the titles. The clue is not in the title of 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'. If it were 'Sustainability & Environmental issues but only from a Green acceptable viewpoint, thanks very much' then game ball. And that's cool and the gang if that's what the regulars want. Issues have both sides so if you don't want to have one side coming in, rather than getting heavyhanded and supercilious about the whole thing spell that out in the charter. Then get heavyhanded if need be. I've read the charter and I don't see any mention of this(I do see mention of the citations please part*, but I have noted that there's more "linkehs please" called for on the nay side than the aye side). Oh yea like all those above forums you reference do. Indeed if you recall both of us fell afoul of the Islam forum doing exactly what we're berating some users here for. Seem's a bit daft to have an "X issues" type forum where only one issue is allowed.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not arguing that SEI is only for posters who come at things from a Green angle, any more than I think the Christianity forum is just for Christians or tLL is just for women. My point would be that those forums suffer from regular attacks by posters who want to attack the underlying premise of the forums - they want to attack the idea of a women's forum, attack Christianity, attack Islam, attack the idea that sustainability is something worth pursuing, attack the idea that climate change is real and needs something done about it - and, more importantly, want to make that the basis of every discussion.

If I go into the Soccer forum and start weighing in on discussions of the relative merits of any two teams with "who cares? why do we consider football important anyway?" and trying to get everyone to talk about that instead, or how rugby is a better game, or how sports are the opium of the masses, then I will quite deservedly get chucked out, because I'll either be trolling (if I'm just doing it for a reaction) or soapboxing (if I genuinely mean it).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

That stance makes little to no sense. It's about as useful a stance as refusing any medical treatment you don't understand everything about, like not taking paracetamol for a headache because you're not familiar with the pharmacology involved in the metabolism of the drug. Existing in the modern world presupposes you trusting some authorities for expert information you can't provide yourself, for the vast, vast majority of us we don't have enough knowledge, training and experience to study climate change ourselves so we need a group like the IPCC to do it for us.

And I have to add there that there is a difference between arguing from authority and referencing an authoritative source.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

Firing a red card at the first poster to get one seems bloody excessive and supercilious to me.

I don’t know what you mean by that? The post in question was not the first to vaguely criticise moderation and easychair had been warned in the past about same.

Wibbs wrote: »

Seem's a bit daft to have an "X issues" type forum where only one issue is allowed.

As I’ve said already, people are free to argue any issue from any position as long as they do it in a rational manner.

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Whenever it occurred, saying something along the lines of "There is a thread here (provide link) to discuss AGW but for the purpose of this particular discussion thread, please can we assume that AGW is happenning and that we need to tackle it and stick to the thread topic."

Or of course in a reverse scenario, "There is a thread here (provide link) to discuss AGW but for the purpose of this particular discussion thread, please can we assume that AGW is not happenning and that we don't need to tackle it and stick to the thread topic."

OK I'll take that wording on board. I wouldn't be in favour of the "reverse scenario" because it wouldn't make sense not to go with the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, even if there are gaps or doubts about some of that evidence. It would be a bit like saying "please can we assume for this thread that the big bang theory is incorrect", in my view. Fine for one or two, but not the majority.

One thing I'm wondering is the use of bold. I use it to try to distinguish between mod/non-mod comments but I'm conscious it comes across unintentionally aggressive. Would poster prefer that mods use something else like <mod></mod> tags? It seems a small thing but can gets peoples backs up.

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

That stance makes little to no sense. It's about as useful a stance as refusing any medical treatment you don't understand everything about, like not taking paracetamol for a headache because you're not familiar with the pharmacology involved in the metabolism of the drug. Existing in the modern world presupposes you trusting some authorities for expert information you can't provide yourself, for the vast, vast majority of us we don't have enough knowledge, training and experience to study climate change ourselves so we need a group like the IPCC to do it for us.

I disagree and refer to my earlier comments "Once upon a time authority said the world was flat; once upon a time authority said take thalidomide tablets; once upon a time authority said the world was cooling etc"

From my own personal experience, had my parents not challenged the doctors around me, I would have a useless paralysed hand but I don't, I'm typing with it now.

And should I trust wind developers who write "wind turbines aren't noisy"

nesf

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I disagree and refer to my earlier comments "Once upon a time authority said the world was flat; once upon a time authority said take thalidomide tablets; once upon a time authority said the world was cooling etc"

From my own personal experience, had my parents not challenged the doctors around me, I would have a useless paralysed hand but I don't, I'm typing with it now.

And should I trust wind developers who write "wind turbines aren't noisy"

Give me a good reason to not take the IPCC as an authoritative source on climate change. It's not good enough to just say some other authority was wrong once.

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

And should I trust wind developers who write "wind turbines aren't noisy"

To address this side-issue: you can go and visit a wind farm in Ireland quite easily (there's one in Wexford that regularly welcomes visitors) and you'll hear for yourself that they aren't noisy.

You can quite happily stand underneath one and have a normal level of conversation - I've done it many times myself.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

OK I'll take that wording on board. I wouldn't be in favour of the "reverse scenario" because it wouldn't make sense not to go with the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, even if there are gaps or doubts about some of that evidence. It would be a bit like saying "please can we assume for this thread that the big bang theory is incorrect", in my view. Fine for one or two, but not the majority.

I'm not quite sure how you can have one but not the other if fair discussion is to be promoted.

Macha wrote: »

One thing I'm wondering is the use of bold. I use it to try to distinguish between mod/non-mod comments but I'm conscious it comes across unintentionally aggressive. Would poster prefer that mods use something else like <mod></mod> tags? It seems a small thing but can gets peoples backs up.

I think mod tags would be an improvement.
When I first came to the boards I didn't realise djpbarry was moderating and so I responded (much to his apparent fury).

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

They didn't really hold any water, something about who he'd worked for I recall...

Actually, I believe I questioned the data presented therein?

easychair wrote: »

I've tried a number of times to engage with you...

Eh, no, no you haven’t. The problem with your contributions is that you don’t engage in discussion. You frequently post things and have absolutely no intention of backing them up or discussing them further. When challenged to do so, you accuse moderators of being heavy-handed and aggressive. Here is an excellent example:

easychair wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

easychair wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

easychair wrote: »

As I sit here, at the height of summer, in the middle of July in the middle of the day, my weather station tells me it's 11.5°C outside...

So what? You wouldn’t be taking a single weather event in isolation and using it to characterise the climate, would you? Certainly not after criticising others for doing just that?

No, I wouldn't and didn't. i merely pointed out a fact. It's now 11.8°C according to my weather station.

That’s not going to fly – if you’re not prepared to discuss something then don’t post it.

Now, care to answer the question?

I have to admit to being somewhat taken aback by your apparently aggressive response.

You asked me a question, implying that i was making a claim from one fact, that my weather station was reading a particular temperature at a particular time. I made no such claim, and clarified that point in my reply. I was simply stating a fact about the temperature, at the time I made the post.

Others have made claims for certain events, suggesting they are evidence of global warming. I make no such claims.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

Give me a good reason to not take the IPCC as an authoritative source on climate change. It's not good enough to just say some other authority was wrong once.

Particularly when one of the examples chosen is wrong. There was never any scientific consensus that the world was cooling, nor even anything approaching it. There were a couple of speculative articles on where climate trends were going - and cooling they had been - plus a lot of overdone media hype. Yet it's on page 1 in every denialist's dictionary, just as Piltdown Man is thrown around by every Creationist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Chloe Pink wrote: »

When I first came to the boards I didn't realise djpbarry was moderating and so I responded (much to his apparent fury).

Yes I frequently erupt with fury during the course of my moderating duties, much to the detriment of my computer’s peripherals – I go through about 6 keyboards a week, on average.

Wibbs

nesf wrote:

The analogy doesn't work, it's extremely, extremely hard to find a climate scientist of good standing who disputes the consensus.

I don't agree. It's a close enough analogy. All christians claim to follow christ but there are areas where they debate as to how. I agree climate scientists in the majority do agree climate change is happening, but equally they differ on by how much and by the degree of how much man is involved and this also changes over time and the concensus de jour. You see this in a fair few areas of grey in science. I remember in my youth that a new ice age was the worry for many, not desertification. Grey areas are good and it's often in the grey the black and white gets teased out. Scientists who claim the line is here! are IMHO foot soldiers of science. If you're a scientist of any discipline I can guarantee many of your firmly held theories will be challenged or even overturned if you went forward 50 years. Sadly the interweb has spread an anti science bias where anyone can have a pop and sadly all too often science has closed ranks and minds as a defence against that. I'd be pretty sure if even a respected researcher found out that say I dunno, migrating plovers were actually the cause of temps rising and could prove it unequivocally he or she would be waiting years to be listened to.

yekahS wrote: »

Just for the record.

I believe the problem with the forum is the tone taken by the moderator. The high and mighty school-teacher approach, which rubs people up the wrong way.There is a place for that (trolls etc.) but there is no need for it to be used on well meaning and intelligent posters.

True though if they're on the receiving end of the same stuff all the time it does become tiresome, hence change the charter and just ban all talk that's anti the consensus of the forum regulars/mod team. Rather than appear to be open to debate yet quick to belittle or use moderation to stop said debate.

I also believe that the mods interject and steer the debate too often. Its particularly unwelcome when they are participating in the thread.

Hard balance to strike though. Personally I don't favour "pro" mods who don't post or rarely on the forums they're charged with. I've raised eyebrows in the past over users been given modships when they're not a part of the community. That said if you are a poster and mod it's real easy to fall into the trap of looking like you're steering the debate. Real easy. Even when you're not. In higher traffic forums you've the advantage of more co mods so you can just defer to them. In smaller forums that's harder.

But I don't think there is any form of 'bullying' going on. Thats a serious allegation, and shouldn't just be bandied about willy-nilly.

+1

Chloe Pink

nesf wrote: »

Give me a good reason to not take the IPCC as an authoritative source on climate change. It's not good enough to just say some other authority was wrong once.

I'm afraid I personally can't. I don't "do" the AGW debate itself because I have not done the necessary research to do so and on the same footing, that means that I cannot confidently stand up and endorse it.

I feel we are digressing from the OP

Chloe Pink

Scofflaw wrote: »

Particularly when one of the examples chosen is wrong.

And the other examples I gave?

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

True though if they're on the receiving end of the same stuff all the time it does become tiresome, hence change the charter and just ban all talk that's anti the consensus of the forum regulars/mod team. Rather than appear to be open to debate yet quick to belittle or use moderation to stop said debate.

To be honest, I think this is grossly unfair. I've said it several times now but I'll say it again, people can argue whatever they want as long as they do so in a rational manner.

Overheal

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ll start off by saying that I’m disappointed that other moderators have taken the issue to publicly criticise my moderation (and there are a few cheap shots in there) when they quite clearly do not have all the facts to hand – they of all people should know what a thankless task moderation can be.

I think it's unfair to throw guilt on others for voicing their opinions in this thread. To be fair, the mods you mention aren't posting in their capacity as Moderators. And to be doubly fair, if you want input or advice on moderation that's one of the capacities the back room provides, should you wish to avail of it.

Third, this issue was raised by the posters of S&EI, one of the hallmarks of which is you have already attempted to have a feedback discussion but had previously left your moderation off the table. My pointed question, with due respect, is do you consider your moderation sacrosanct?

To be fair, I did ask for suggested changes to the charter and the reason I asked for moderation to be left out of it was because I knew the thread would otherwise have descended into chaos. Even with that warning in place, we still got 3 posts (from easychair, Needler and Mahatma coat) espousing vague criticism of moderation.

I agree, but that's exactly why I would think to have such a thread here. Having it in the forum created a Mods vs. Posters pitched battle that would never work. Not, at least, so long as there was strong criticism about the moderation.

You don’t think it might be relevant to ask why ei.sdraob was banned? Further, ei.sdraob has clocked up 35 warnings and infractions during their time on boards.ie – is that the mark of a “good” poster?

I have 15 bans (6 of which were permanent and for the same furry offense) 14 Infractions and 11 Warnings, and 1 siteban. Unless I miscounted. But I see your point.

Still, I see his bans from S&EI shot up from 3 days, to 7 days, to Permanent, which I personally find odd for a one-liner about the moderation to be the last straw that broke the camel. I know it doesn't always have to escalate but what about the 1 month, or 6 month ban? Mind, I'm just asking the question, not stating it's what should have been done in the situation.

Again, who has been banned for providing feedback?

Evidently, as confirmed by you 60 seconds after ^this post, ei.sdraob was: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73672331&postcount=101

You do say its for aggregate offenses, but I hope you can see that for the purposes of this discussion thats certainly what it appears like.

Macha wrote: »

What would your solution be to the challenge of preventing every climate-change/carbon-related post becoming a debate on AGW?

To be direct: A mega-thread. Works for Creationism and Evolution.

Scofflaw wrote: »

If I go into the Soccer forum and start weighing in on discussions of the relative merits of any two teams with "who cares? why do we consider football important anyway?" and trying to get everyone to talk about that instead, or how rugby is a better game, or how sports are the opium of the masses, then I will quite deservedly get chucked out, because I'll either be trolling (if I'm just doing it for a reaction) or soapboxing (if I genuinely mean it).

Are there examples of that happening though? From what I see of recent S&EI are clearly defined threads that challenge things like the efficiency or usefulness of Wind Power. I haven't been directed at any point to a discussion on Hydro vs. Wind that was de-railed by someone saying 'what's the point? GW is a scam anyway'.

I planned more responses, but I've misread by work schedule and must be going now, or 15 minutes ago.

Scofflaw

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I'm afraid I personally can't. I don't "do" the AGW debate itself because I have not done the necessary research to do so and on the same footing, that means that I cannot confidently stand up and endorse it.

Yet you have confidently thrown into the ring a supposed (and wrong) argument against it.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

I feel we are digressing from the OP

Ironically, the thread reprises exactly what happens if you allow the pro/anti debate into them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

To address this side-issue: you can go and visit a wind farm in Ireland quite easily (there's one in Wexford that regularly welcomes visitors) and you'll hear for yourself that they aren't noisy.

You can quite happily stand underneath one and have a normal level of conversation - I've done it many times myself.

Try looking up the High Court case lodged by the Davis family in Deeping St Nicholas and the Denbrook Valley wind turbine Public Inquiries and High Court Cases (a subject of a BBC 2 series (not unfortunately available in all of Ireland)).
Wind developers have to take back ground noise measurements at properties around their proposed developments exactly because wind turbines are noisy.

Standing underneath a wind turbine is like standing behind a speaker at a rave, yep you can speak to someone there but try it on the dance floor. The noise issue is far more complicated than represented by this very simplistic statement (apologies but I don't know how else to put it).

However, we digress from the OP