Fussy moderation in 'Sustainability & Environmental issues'

Macha

Overheal wrote: »

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

Good idea - we'll look into it.

But Chloe Pink is still suggesting being allowed to debate other threads under the assumption that AGW is false. I just don't see how that is at all workable.

One mega-thread AGW debate? Fine. But the working assumption for all other threads has to be that AGW is accepted, in my view. Otherwise, it just gets messy and confusing.

Edit: Chloe Pink, I'm sorry but I've stood under wind turbines on windy days and held a normal conversation. Standing underneath a wind turbine is nothing like standing behind a speaker at a rave. Of course wind farms are obliged to consider noise as part of the EIA but that doesn't automatically mean that wind turbines are noisy.

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

My point is S that each one of those forums has that as part of the charter. That stops confusion and gives the mods and community something to reference if someone does come along with that line. That and the forum titles are pretty clear

djpbarry wrote: »

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.

In that thread on forum feedback it was. Now if the moderation is in question start listening. If a big enough proportion of your forum focus are bringing it up then really listen. It's down to numbers. If two people say you smell ignore them, if ten people say you smell, buy soap. If ye only everr hear you smell from a couple of posters then ignore them and plough on.

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 that we agree with.

FYP according to some and TBH that's the impression I've gotten reading threads over time. Again I say cool, if that's what the forum is for. Its the community's forum and what they want goes. Mods only follow that. But make that clear.

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

Not quite. This is also trotted out as a defence(naturally) against the more nutty naysayers and it's not quite true. There was a number of respected researchers publishing papers on the notion of global cooling. It wasn't just media hype.

Yet it's on page 1 in every denialist's dictionary, just as Piltdown Man is thrown around y every Creationist.

Yes but Piltdown man was thought to be a valid discovery by a number of respected scientists. Especially in Britain. Subjectivity ahoy. While the creationist morons(and god they tend to be(no pun)) make hay with it, it doesn't entirely negate some of their contentions of how science can for subjective reasons get it so wrong. Of course unlike some dribbling preacher in arkansas who reckons existence is set in stone, science did come around to seeing it was all bollocks. They leave that part out.

Scofflaw

Overheal wrote:

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'.

From this thread, it appears that the reason that doesn't happen is because it's pretty evident it's not going to be tolerated. That seems like a positive outcome to me, and we achieve much the same effect in Politics through making it clear that CT material - which many posters would consider self-evidently politics - belongs in CT. Otherwise most Politics threads would be disrupted by the people who believe the Illuminati are pulling the threads behind every political event.

The NI stuff...we just can't stop people doing that, but in our defence I'll point out that neither could any number of police and security forces. Same for Israel/Palestine.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

To clear things up I never questioned global warming (or climate change or whatever its called now) and stayed away from topic where possible.

What I did question is the apocalyptic/biblical style scaremongering that is used to beat people into accepting policies that are downright authoritarian and endup doing more damage to the environmental/green movement than good, this was illustrated and debated by channel 4

I am interested in the politics and economics and technologies (of which i put my wallet where my mouth is and use solar heater and insulation in own home) for example I had rather courteous debate in the infrastructure forum on spirit of Ireland.

Granted i could be abrasive at times (after hard day working in order to pay taxes to keep our glorious socialist republic chugging along) and for that I apologize, but the moderatorship and posts in a this forum being discussed only solidified the theory in my head that the Green flag got hijacked by people who want control over others, and waving the "OMG polar bears" banners helps suppress any critical and objective discussion since people dont like being accused of "being evil"TM

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote: »

My point is S that each one of those forums has that as part of the charter. That stops confusion and gives the mods and community something to reference if someone does come along with that line. That and the forum titles are pretty clear

So, to be fair, is SEI's. The Charter should probably make it clearer that the forum operates essentially on the basis of scientific consensus, just as Politics does on the basis that politics is actually politics rather than a front for lizard people. I suspect we may not actually spell that out in the Charter, though.

Wibbs wrote: »

In that thread on forum feedback it was. Now if the moderation is in question start listening. If a big enough proportion of your forum focus are bringing it up then really listen. It's down to numbers. If two people say you smell ignore them, if ten people say you smell, buy soap.
FYP according to some and TBH that's the impression I've gotten reading threads over time. Again I say cool, if that's what the forum is for. Its the community's forum and what they want goes. Mods only follow that. But make that clear.

Fair points.

Wibbs wrote: »

Not quite. This is also trotted out as a defence(naturally) against the more nutty naysayers and it's not quite true. There was a number of respected researchers publishing papers on the notion of global cooling. It wasn't just media hype. Yes but Piltdown man was thought to be a valid discovery by a number of respected scientists. Especially in Britain. Subjectivity ahoy. While the creationist morons(and god they tend to be(no pun)) make hay with it, it doesn't entirely negate some of their contentions of how science can for subjective reasons get it so wrong. Of course unlike some dribbling preacher in arkansas who reckons existence is set in stone, science did come around to seeing it was all bollocks. They leave that part out.

And you've answered your own point there, I think, because while some respected researchers certainly did publish papers on global cooling, it was as an initial investigation into climate change, and the scientific community moved on with further research.

Snapshotting a preliminary moment in scientific investigation and claiming that that represented the "authoritative" view is the part of the argument as presented by Chloe that's wrong - it most certainly didn't, but denialists claim it exactly as if it held the same position as the warming trend does today, which is a palpably false claim.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Eh, I think you're grossly overstating how much disagreement there is with that analogy to be fair going by people I know working in the field.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

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.

Eh, I think you're grossly overstating how much disagreement there is with that analogy to be fair going by people I know working in the field.

Wildly overstating it, in fact, looking across the rubble-and-corpse-strewn vista of Christian ecumenicalism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

djpbarry wrote: »

Further, ei.sdraob has clocked up 35 warnings and infractions during their time on boards.ie – is that the mark of a “good” poster?

35 in 3 years, most of them in politics where the debates get rather heated, how many did I get in last year? I tried to be a good boy lately :pac:

djpbarry

Overheal wrote: »

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.

Ok, fair enough, perhaps I should have been more specific and referred to those who were passing judgement in the absence of fact.

Overheal wrote: »

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?

Obviously not and I have taken on board some of the points on this thread. But let’s be clear – there have been some pretty serious allegations levelled in this thread and, as yet, there has been virtually no evidence put forward in support of those allegations.

Overheal wrote: »

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.

Point taken – I suppose it was where it was for the purpose of visibility to the forum regulars.

Overheal wrote: »

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?

I suppose I could have, but I didn’t get the impression that the poster in question was ever going to change. I could be wrong, but the ban has not been contested by the poster, so I have to assume that they’re not interested in returning to the forum.

Overheal wrote: »

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.

But that’s not really the place to be making such comments, is it?

Overheal wrote: »

Are there examples of that happening though?

Well, yes – that’s pretty much exactly why ei.sdraob was banned. He/she repeatedly tarred anyone of (from his/her perspective) a remotely “green” disposition as a tree-hugging hippy who dismissed science in favour of the Gaia hypothesis and was intent on dragging the planet back to the dark ages.

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

My point is S that each one of those forums has that as part of the charter. That stops confusion and gives the mods and community something to reference if someone does come along with that line. That and the forum titles are pretty clear

Ok.

Wibbs wrote: »

In that thread on forum feedback it was. Now if the moderation is in question start listening. If a big enough proportion of your forum focus are bringing it up then really listen. It's down to numbers. If two people say you smell ignore them, if ten people say you smell, buy soap.

If even one person wants to tell me there’s a problem, I’ll listen, if they’ve got something substantive that they can point to.

Wibbs wrote: »

FYP according to some and TBH that's the impression I've gotten reading threads over time.

And tbh, I think that’s grossly unfair. As I’ve said already, there is a thread criticising the IPCC (for example) that is still open and, as far as I am aware, nobody has been banned for their contributions to said thread. There’s also a thread on “Climategate” still open for discussion. I’m sure there are others I could list as an example. Posters who get banned from SEI get banned almost exclusively for soap-boxing, regardless of their disposition – here’s an excellent example.

Chloe Pink

Scofflaw wrote: »

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



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

cordially,
Scofflaw

To clarify, because it seems that two different points are being treated as one:

I have given a few examples of where authoritive sources have been wrong (one of them is apparently incorrect but that doesn't negate the others and there are plenty more to be found.)
I have given these examples quite simply to illustrate that sources of authority (like all of us) can make mistakes.

Whether I think AGW is or isn't happening is a completely separate matter.
I do not take a stance in either direction as to whether AGW is or isn't happening.

I havew not argued against AGW or for it. I trust this makes matters clear.

djpbarry

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Granted i could be abrasive at times (after hard day working in order to pay taxes to keep our glorious socialist republic chugging along) and for that I apologize...

Thank you.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

...but the moderatorship and posts in a this forum being discussed only solidified the theory in my head that the Green flag got hijacked by people who want control over others...

Well, that’s your opinion. And you were free to argue that opinion. But you chose to be insulting and make ridiculous generalisations about everyone who disagreed with you. In spite of several warnings, you kept it up, so I was left with no choice but to ban you, which you then used as evidence to support your viewpoint that nobody was allowed to disagree with “the environmentalist brainwashing”.

The problem was not your point of view, the problem was how you chose to convey it.

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

Good idea - we'll look into it.

But Chloe Pink is still suggesting being allowed to debate other threads under the assumption that AGW is false. I just don't see how that is at all workable.

One mega-thread AGW debate? Fine. But the working assumption for all other threads has to be that AGW is accepted, in my view. Otherwise, it just gets messy and confusing.

OK, take a default position that AGW is accepted on all threads unless specifically stated otherwise in the OP.

Macha wrote: »

Edit: Chloe Pink, I'm sorry but I've stood under wind turbines on windy days and held a normal conversation. Standing underneath a wind turbine is nothing like standing behind a speaker at a rave. Of course wind farms are obliged to consider noise as part of the EIA but that doesn't automatically mean that wind turbines are noisy.

Have you looked at cases I referred to?
The problem seems that ETSU-R97 (the method intended to assess and limit wind turbine noise) is failing to protect the public.
It's reached a stage where even some government inspectors (UK) are saying it should be reviewed.

Macha

Chloe Pink wrote: »

OK, take a default position that AGW is accepted on all threads unless specifically stated otherwise in the OP.

Mmm could work, but could be messy having to ensure all posters note it at the beginning of a thread could end up with the mods constantly reminding posters that this is an "anti-AGW thread".

Personally, I'd prefer having one mega-thread, as suggested by Wibbs and having the rest as assuming AGW is a reality. Not sure how this would be decided.

Re wind turbine noise: the Davis case is ongoing. I'll reserve judgement on that case until it's settled and in the meantime will rely on lack of noise complaints in Ireland (all Irish wind turbines have to be 1.5km away from a residence anyway) and my own experience of wind turbines not being noisy. Edit: please PM me on this as it's definitely off topic at this stage.

Scofflaw

Macha wrote: »

OK, take a default position that AGW is accepted on all threads unless specifically stated otherwise in the OP.

Mmm could work, but could be messy having to ensure all posters note it at the beginning of a thread could end up with the mods constantly reminding posters that this is an "anti-AGW thread".

Personally, I'd prefer having one mega-thread, as suggested by Wibbs and having the rest as assuming AGW is a reality. Not sure how this would be decided.

Unless you want a new thread any time the anti-AGW spin machine manufactures some new 'evidence' - or resurrects some old stuff in the expectation that people have forgotten its previous debunking - I would strongly recommend the mega-thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

Re wind turbine noise: the Davis case is ongoing. I'll reserve judgement on that case until it's settled and in the meantime will rely on lack of noise complaints in Ireland (all Irish wind turbines have to be 1.5km away from a residence anyway) and my own experience of wind turbines not being noisy.

There's indication to the contrary here:
http://www.clarechampion.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3822
Saturday, August 6, 2011
"OVER 350 people have signed a petition requesting Clare County Council to increase the setback distance required between homes and wind turbines from 400 metres minimum to at least 1,000m"

Where did you get your info from please re 1.5km min setback from residences?

Wibbs

nesf wrote: »

Eh, I think you're grossly overstating how much disagreement there is with that analogy to be fair going by people I know working in the field.

Nope there is indeed wide disagreement on several points of the consensus and even more disagreement about the authority and scientific rigour of the IPCC. Some quite heated and not by some bible thumping windowlickers either. EG http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport hell even the polar ice caps melting? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14408930 Theres also some political skullduggery aimed at people in the field who dare to challenge the consensus. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802A-23AD-4BF9-C3F02278F4CF

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope there is indeed wide disagreement on several points of the consensus and even more disagreement about the authority and scientific rigour of the IPCC. Some quite heated and not by some bible thumping windowlickers either. EG http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport hell even the polar ice caps melting? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14408930 Theres also some political skullduggery aimed at people in the field who dare to challenge the consensus. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802A-23AD-4BF9-C3F02278F4CF

Eh, but nobody has claimed that there is no disagreement, or that the consensus extends to the details (and in the overall scheme of things, the question of whether icecaps melt is a detail, albeit an important one). The people who claim that the consensus around AGW is a seamless monolithic block covering all details are primarily those who want to set up a straw man, and claim that disagreement on the details means there no consensus at all.

The extent of the consensus in climate science is really only that it's now beyond reasonable and informed doubt that the climate is changing, and that we are a major forcing agent through several mechanisms. Beyond that, there's the usual amount of dispute on pretty much everything.

And if there were never any flaws in the IPCC's output, one would really have to ask the question why such perfection was unobtainable elsewhere...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Chloe Pink

djpbarry wrote: »

Actually, I believe I questioned the data presented therein?

I know it's a while ago but would you mind pointing to where you challenged the data within Hugh Sharman's ICE Telford Gold Winning report please.
I found the thread and the "crap" word here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056138110&highlight=crap&page=12 but not the bit where you challenge the data in Sharman's report.

Chloe Pink

Scofflaw wrote: »

The extent of the consensus in climate science is really only that it's now beyond reasonable and informed doubt that the climate is changing, and that we are a major forcing agent through several mechanisms. Beyond that, there's the usual amount of dispute on pretty much everything.

The climate's changing, well that is news to all of us I'm sure.
It's such statements that are detrimental to the theory of AGW. Are you saying that the consesus isn't that the climate's necessarily warming, simply that it's changing and that we impact it?


For someone who acknowledges that there may be flaws in the IPCC's output:

Scofflaw wrote: »

And if there were never any flaws in the IPCC's output

and who acknowledges that there may be some disagreement:

Scofflaw wrote: »

Eh, but nobody has claimed that there is no disagreement

you seem to have scant regard for any counter evidence to AGW

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unless you want a new thread any time the anti-AGW spin machine manufactures some new 'evidence' - or resurrects some old stuff in the expectation that people have forgotten its previous debunking

Someone on this thread has suggested that the grey areas help to show the black and the white. I think this is a very wise observation and so in the interests of information and knowlege, open minds and attitudes will be our best allies.

ei.sdraob

djpbarry wrote: »

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Granted i could be abrasive at times (after hard day working in order to pay taxes to keep our glorious socialist republic chugging along) and for that I apologize...

Thank you.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

...but the moderatorship and posts in a this forum being discussed only solidified the theory in my head that the Green flag got hijacked by people who want control over others...

Well, that’s your opinion. And you were free to argue that opinion. But you chose to be insulting and make ridiculous generalisations about everyone who disagreed with you. In spite of several warnings, you kept it up, so I was left with no choice but to ban you, which you then used as evidence to support your viewpoint that nobody was allowed to disagree with “the environmentalist brainwashingâ€.

The problem was not your point of view, the problem was how you chose to convey it.

Posting in that forum was compareable to being an atheist in Saudi Arabia or something. It is my fault that I got frustrated,I should have realized earlier that environmentalism is a form of religion with similar doomsday overtones and the desire to push others onto the "sustainable " path whether they like it or not, and intolerant to any questioning of key beliefs

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Posting in that forum was compareable to being an atheist in Saudi Arabia or something. It is my fault that I got frustrated,I should have realized earlier that environmentalism is a form of religion with similar doomsday overtones and the desire to push others onto the "sustainable " path whether they like it or not, and intolerant to any questioning of key beliefs

And it was regular rants like that, that got you banned. Thank you for confirming the decision.

Chloe Pink - global warming is now referred to as climate change because the impacts on the climate will be far more complicated that a simple warming. Different parts of the globe will experience different alterations as a result of a rise in the mean global temperature. In short, calling it global warming was too simplistic.

nesf

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope there is indeed wide disagreement on several points of the consensus and even more disagreement about the authority and scientific rigour of the IPCC. Some quite heated and not by some bible thumping windowlickers either. EG http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport hell even the polar ice caps melting? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14408930 Theres also some political skullduggery aimed at people in the field who dare to challenge the consensus. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802A-23AD-4BF9-C3F02278F4CF

Those points aren't really the "consensus" though because they're not agreed on. What's agreed on is:

a) Global Temperatures have risen and global climate change is happening.

b) Natural forcing factors cannot account for the change.

c) Man created forcing effects in both directions explain the rest of the temperature movement satisfactorily.


Beyond these three points there is disagreement because the science is inexact but the whole point of IPCC was to confirm the above 3 and to give some decent estimates of the details but the details do not carry the same consensus level. How fast exactly the world will heat up is open to debate because of different ways of modelling the interactions between the negative and positive forcing effects, this is normal, the IPCC (iirc) just took an average from the models there will always be some disagreement here. The same with models on the ice caps and other events.

But when anyone informed talks about the consensus they are talking about the above three points not the nitty gritty details of the modelling because there can't be a consensus on that yet because there's constant ongoing research on better ways to model these things and improvements and changes to scenarios are being made practically daily.

themandan6611

What outcome to this thread are people looking for ?

For me, the mods tone / manner of communication needs improving. Along with this some posters have made, in my opinion, unjustified claims against mods.

this particular thread is now 11 odd pages and people are getting into the finer detail of a lot of information - it could go on all year and people get more entrenched.

why not agree some form of way forward ?

Chloe Pink

Macha wrote: »

And it was regular rants like that, that got you banned. Thank you for confirming the decision.

Chloe Pink - global warming is now referred to as climate change because the impacts on the climate will be far more complicated that a simple warming. Different parts of the globe will experience different alterations as a result of a rise in the mean global temperature. In short, calling it global warming was too simplistic.

Macha, would you respond to my msg number 167; you possibly missed it alongside all the responses going on at the moment.

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Posting in that forum was compareable to being an atheist in Saudi Arabia or something. It is my fault that I got frustrated,I should have realized earlier that environmentalism is a form of religion with similar doomsday overtones and the desire to push others onto the "sustainable " path whether they like it or not, and intolerant to any questioning of key beliefs

It kind of gets back to Wibbs point, you fervently believe your point and that's cool, we are all entitled to our opinions. You come from a libertarian point of view and have been severely critical of the Greens in politics as well. Greens mean higher taxes so a libertarian is predisposed against it, I pay higher taxes so it must be wrong!

That's fine, It would be a very boring world without Libertarians.

I've seen Libertarian and AGW posters who are perfectly able to make their point civilly and have interesting debates, I'm all for that.

I think Wibbs made the point earlier, I see far too much opinion put forward as fact these days on boards. Maybe it's as the site gets bigger and diversifies with different interest boards, there's an element of what you are against, rather than what you are for.

What is common is the need to dissent from the norm. There is no sense of building a community for themselves, no demand for say a dissenters forum, no community. The only common denominator I see is noise!

Scofflaw

Chloe Pink wrote: »

The climate's changing, well that is news to all of us I'm sure.
It's such statements that are detrimental to the theory of AGW. Are you saying that the consesus isn't that the climate's necessarily warming, simply that it's changing and that we impact it?

I am a completely definitive source, and my lightest utterance is utterly binding on the entire scientific community, so obviously yes.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

For someone who acknowledges that there may be flaws in the IPCC's output:
and who acknowledges that there may be some disagreement:

you seem to have scant regard for any counter evidence to AGW

That's an interesting claim, because to my knowledge I haven't been presented with any at all - either here or anywhere else in your presence.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Someone on this thread has suggested that the grey areas help to show the black and the white. I think this is a very wise observation and so in the interests of information and knowlege, open minds and attitudes will be our best allies.

I have an open mind, but I'm a little fussy about the quality of stuff I put in it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

It kind of gets back to Wibbs point, you fervently believe your point and that's cool, we are all entitled to our opinions. You come from a libertarian point of view and have been severely critical of the Greens in politics as well. Greens mean higher taxes so a libertarian is predisposed against it, I pay higher taxes so it must be wrong!

That's fine, It would be a very boring world without Libertarians.

I've seen Libertarian and AGW posters who are perfectly able to make their point civilly and have interesting debates, I'm all for that.

I think Wibbs made the point earlier, I see far too much opinion put forward as fact these days on boards. Maybe it's as the site gets bigger and diversifies with different interest boards, there's an element of what you are against, rather than what you are for.

What is common is the need to dissent from the norm. There is no sense of building a community for themselves, no demand for say a dissenters forum, no community. The only common denominator I see is noise!

As far as I can see you're allowed to dissent as much as you want you just cannot either a) soapbox (i.e. ignore evidence/counterpoint/don't explain or back up your statements etc) or b) take sweeping blows against the entire forum or an entire movement. The issue with ei.draob's approach is that he loses his patience/civility/temper and lashes out with a bunch of generalisations about the Green movement and its motives. That, on a Green Issues forum, is basically trolling.

Chloe Pink

themandan6611 wrote: »

What outcome to this thread are people looking for ?

For me, the mods tone / manner of communication needs improving. Along with this some posters have made, in my opinion, unjustified claims against mods.

this particular thread is now 11 odd pages and people are getting into the finer detail of a lot of information - it could go on all year and people get more entrenched.

why not agree some form of way forward ?

I think a little progress has been made but I'm not convinced that anything is going to change much.
I see posters being hauled up for certain behaviour even though the mods themselves have done exactly the same thing.
Someone's going to ask for an example so one of them is where easychair is challenged by djpbarry for mentioning the temperature on one day this summer because that wasn't representative of what was going on across the planet over many days.
Yet djpbarry did exactly the same thing when he quoted the wind speeds on one day in Dublin and London as though they proved something yet these weren't representative of what was going on across Europe over many days.
This is the sort of thing I have an issue with regarding moderation on the forum; it' the inconsistency and double standards, the fact that behaviour that's OK from a mod isn't OK from a poster.

Chloe Pink

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's an interesting claim, because to my knowledge I haven't been presented with any at all - either here or anywhere else in your presence.

Well that's probably because I haven't offered any but that's not the point I was making.

The point I was making is that if you were offered any, you don't appear open to it as you refer to it in a detrimental manner when you write "any time the anti-AGW spin machine manufactures some new 'evidence' " .