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
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59087
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).Wildly overstating it, in fact, looking across the rubble-and-corpse-strewn vista of Christian ecumenicalism.
TBH S While I do enjoy reading many of your posts and the informed opinions behind them, this is why I've never bothered to enter into any debate where you've set up your stall. You in general avoid the direct questions and elegantly (and cordially) misdirect any attempt to point out anything that doesn't suit your worldview. Your politics? God no. You can be likened to a greased eel at times and while I do enjoy the occasional slipperiness in action, I'd question your objectivity on more than a few subjects. Not your moderation BTW. Your colours are pinned to your mast for all to see and that's good, but open to any other worldview you most certainly are not, even if you protest in the wilderness about how open you are if only people would present me with a cogent argument. While I may disagree with Permabear on his reading of some mods aping your approach, I do see where he's coming from and I see it in certain areas of the Politics forum and I see it in the forum in question.
That said I don't post in either(and others), merely lurk and enjoy lurking. Though I'm not taking bullets for anyones agenda or seeking to piss of the locals. I can't understand why anyone would TBH. Including the OP and others flagging this as a "problem". I work this principle; if I don't fit in, if I'm likely to raise hackles by trying or I'm going to be elegantly stonewalled by made up minds then why give myself and said locals the hassle? If you don;t like the forum and it doesn't suit you the internet is Fúcking Huge(technical term), go off and find a forum where djpbarry, macha nesf and scoffy(and likely me to boot) would be jumped on from a height and debate there. The world wide web is your oyster.
There are people on here(and in life) who I have a lot of time for and respect(inc scofflaw and indeed djpbarry), but no way would I get into certain subjects with same. Broken pencil time. For both of us. So I avoid doing so for all sakes. I gather one is best avoiding talk of religion, sex and politics in polite conversation. Well.... I do try and can be very trying but in fairness folks two outa three ain't bad.
Actually no. Not quite. Or in the word of the prophet, Bollocks. Or if you will how the other side of this debate sets up it's own strawmen. The climate is changing. OK. By how much is in debate. How much of an agent we are in this is in debate. How much this change will actually affect the planet and us longterm is in debate. I recall a documentary on the Beeb a while back with David Attenborough doing the oul voice over. The lad could dial in gravitas by fax. Now in among some halfway decent science you had all sorts of ballsology such as Dave in hushed tone stating that should the UK temps go up by a few degrees iron/steel traintracks would warp and cause all sorts of problems. Enlightened talking head were on camera to back this up. Yep those self same traintracks and steel that happily carry their charges through Spain, Italy, Germany, India, South Africa, Australia etc without issue. There is most definitely hype and ballsology on both sides and depending upon which hill you've planted your flag, you'll agree or disagree even in the face of better evidence or better judgement. Humans eh?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. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
TBH S While I do enjoy reading many of your posts and the informed opinions behind them, this is why I've never bothered to enter into any debate where you've set up your stall. You in general avoid the direct questions and elegantly (and cordially) misdirect any attempt to point out anything that doesn't suit your worldview. Your politics? God no. You can be likened to a greased eel at times and while I do enjoy the occasional slipperiness in action, I'd question your objectivity on more than a few subjects. Not your moderation BTW. Your colours are pinned to your mast for all to see and that's good, but open to any other worldview you most certainly are not, even if you protest in the wilderness about how open you are if only people would present me with a cogent argument. While I may disagree with Permabear on his reading of some mods aping your approach, I do see where he's coming from and I see it in certain areas of the Politics forum and I see it in the forum in question.
Oh, I don't think I've ever claimed to simply be open to any worldview - I think I've made quite clear that I find some of them frankly daft, while there are others I find equally daft where I've never bothered to point it out. The far left, the far right, and libertarianism I find equally stupid and I don't think I've ever really made any bones about it, which explains some of the antipathy from proponents of such views. However, I do think that both the left and the right - and even libertarians - have something to offer, and whenever one tendency achieves dominance, the other more or less automatically has more to offer.
Nor am I open to replacing the scientific worldview with one based on economic preferences, woolly thinking, "common sense", or some sort of post-modernist drivel about how we can never really know anything for sure. Again, I don't think I make much pretence - bar politeness - not to think that.
However, everyone has their blind spots, and I'd welcome any observations about where mine are - where I don't think I'm biased, but am.That said I don't post in either(and others), merely lurk and enjoy lurking. Though I'm not taking bullets for anyones agenda or seeking to piss of the locals. I can't understand why anyone would TBH. Including the OP and others flagging this as a "problem". I work this principle; if I don't fit in, if I'm likely to raise hackles by trying or I'm going to be elegantly stonewalled by made up minds then why give myself and said locals the hassle? If you don;t like the forum and it doesn't suit you the internet is Fúcking Huge(technical term), go off and find a forum where djpbarry, macha nesf and scoffy(and likely me to boot) would be jumped on from a height and debate there. The world wide web is your oyster.
Very true.Actually no. Not quite. Or in the word of the prophet, Bollocks. Or if you will how the other side of this debate sets up it's own strawmen. The climate is changing. OK. By how much is in debate. How much of an agent we are in this is in debate. How much this change will actually affect the planet and us longterm is in debate.
Heh - yes and no (well, two noes). That the extent to which the climate will change is debated wasn't something I claimed wasn't the case, although I would certainly say that the consensus doesn't include change being negligible, something which could be easily inferred from your phrasing. That we're a major factor in the change isn't in serious doubt - the exact proportion of our contribution is open, but the order of magnitude isn't really. And again, "how much this change will actually affect the planet and us longterm is in debate" isn't something I claimed wasn't the case.
So, one out of three, which isn't great, particularly given you had the words in front of you.I recall a documentary on the Beeb a while back with David Attenborough doing the oul voice over. The lad could dial in gravitas by fax. Now in among some halfway decent science you had all sorts of ballsology such as Dave in hushed tone stating that should the UK temps go up by a few degrees iron/steel traintracks would warp and cause all sorts of problems. Enlightened talking head were on camera to back this up. Yep those self same traintracks and steel that happily carry their charges through Spain, Italy, Germany, India, South Africa, Australia etc without issue. There is most definitely hype and ballsology on both sides and depending upon which hill you've planted your flag, you'll agree or disagree even in the face of better evidence or better judgement. Humans eh?
Sure, there's hype and ballsology on both sides, and there's some dire stuff claimed that's complete twaddle - so what? As you say, all that shows is that humans are humans. That's why we have science, and when a scepticism-and-facts based field like science comes to a very broad consensus on something, that's something to take extremely seriously. The media, on the other hand, are not, and their views on, and re-tellings of the science are entirely, totally, utterly and completely irrelevant to any purposeful debate on the subject.
See: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1804#comic
Mind you, it's quite probable that climate change will cause all kinds of chaos with the railways. In England, anyway. Different kinds of leaves at the very least.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
Actually its a very old bit of drivel. The hippies on both sides just latched onto the basic premise and missed the subtleties.or some sort of post-modernist drivel about how we can never really know anything for sure.
It depends on what one defines as negligible.Heh - yes and no (well, two noes). That the extent to which the climate will change is debated wasn't something I claimed wasn't the case, although I would certainly say that the consensus doesn't include change being negligible, something which could be easily inferred from your phrasing.
As far as overal global temp rise? Actually there is doubt to the degree of it.That we're a major factor in the change isn't in serious doubt
Eh that reads ok but makes less sense than it may read.the exact proportion of our contribution is open, but the order of magnitude isn't really.
Like I say, greased up eel.So, one out of three, which isn't great, particularly given you had the words in front of you.
FYP. Taking science in the moment seriously is good, taking it extremely seriously is not. Those who understand the science but mistrust the consensus on the edges drive science forward.That's why we have science, and when a scepticism-and-facts based field like science comes to a very broad consensus on something, that's something to take seriously at this present time given the consensus of evidence at this present time.
Partially. I can pretty much guarantee much of the guts of your scientific knowledge comes from that self same media. Maybe towards the more highbrow end? The Daily Fail they're not, but Nature, Scientific American and New Scientist and the rest are part of the media.The media, on the other hand, are not, and their views on, and re-tellings of the science are entirely, totally, utterly and completely irrelevant to any purposeful debate on the subject.
Well true enough S and god how I twitched to drop the leaves ref. I'm feeding you lines so I expect payment...Mind you, it's quite probable that climate change will cause all kinds of chaos with the railways. In England, anyway. Different kinds of leaves at the very least. How the mighty have fallen prey to leaves on the track, but still there is an awful lot of bollocks talked about rising temps on this planet and how they might affect us and the green hippies buy into it lock stock and barrel maaan and sometimes dubuous and unscientific policy is written by uninformed dolts on the back of it and equally uninformed dolts react by buying into "crystals will save us maaaan" as a reaction to the extreme. To much either/or, too little "eh hang on a minute Ted what was the buddhist bloke on about re middle paths?".
Seriously N? God I have. More than a few who could step back in the face of objections to their points.None of us are objective about the important stuff though to be fair. Or at least I've never met someone who could manage it for anything they really cared about.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 21207
Not going to push the issue but it it would at least ensure all points of view were put on the table at the get-go and therefore need be considered What happens after that is up to the local mod / cmod collective brain.I'm unsure if that would work well with a forum like this, it's too contentious. Minority interests have to be protected etc. I could be wrong though.
0 -
Actually its a very old bit of drivel. The hippies on both sides just latched onto the basic premise and missed the subtleties.
True enough.It depends on what one defines as negligible.
A level which we can and should easily ignore would be pretty much the definition, which in turn carries the implication of a level which not only constitutes no known/foreseeable threat, but which doesn't offer much room for unknown threats. As far as I'm aware the consensus certainly considers the expected degree of climate change as non-negligible.As far as overal global temp rise? Actually there is doubt to the degree of it.
There's quite a wide variation, depending on forcing parameters, scenarios, details of couplings etc. I'm not sure, though, why you're making out that I'm saying this isn't the case.Eh that reads ok but makes less sense than it may read.
Actually, it was the result of two draft sentences being run together. More clearly, our activities are a major climate change forcing parameter, and the orders of magnitude of the effects we have are not seriously challenged.Like I say, greased up eel.
You keep grabbing the straw men, though.FYP. Taking science in the moment seriously is good, taking it extremely seriously is not. Those who understand the science but mistrust the consensus on the edges drive science forward. Partially. I can pretty much guarantee much of the guts of your scientific knowledge comes from that self same media. Maybe towards the more highbrow end? The Daily Fail they're not, but Nature, Scientific American and New Scientist and the rest are part of the media.
Um, no. As you said about my comment, that's something that seems to make sense, but doesn't really. When there's a scientific consensus on something like, say, string theory, that's something that should be taken seriously, but not extremely seriously, because at the end of the day it has no practical global implications. A scientific consensus that we're facing a major environmental change (and all the knock-on effects of such a change) as a result of our activities is something to take extremely seriously.
The debate isn't "academic", and standing around hemming and hawing about how there are still uncertainties about the exact effects etc etc de yada de yada is either idiotic - or suggests that one really doesn't believe it's true at the emotional level. The exact distribution of impacts, for example, is relevant only in deciding on mitigation and compensation strategies - they, and much of the rest of the uncertainty, is completely irrelevant to deciding whether to avoid the whole thing as far as possible.Well true enough S and god how I twitched to drop the leaves ref. I'm feeding you lines so I expect payment... How the mighty have fallen prey to leaves on the track, but still there is an awful lot of bollocks talked about rising temps on this planet and how they might affect us and the green hippies buy into it lock stock and barrel maaan and sometimes dubuous and unscientific policy is written by uninformed dolts on the back of it and equally uninformed dolts react by buying into "crystals will save us maaaan" as a reaction to the extreme. To much either/or, too little "eh hang on a minute Ted what was the buddhist bloke on about re middle paths?".
Again, though, so what?Seriously N? God I have. More than a few who could step back in the face of objections to their points.
Raise serious objections - and preferably serious objections that haven't been discussed ad nauseam by the other parties on previous occasions.
In general, I avoid debating climate change online, because I'm not going to persuade those for whom it simply isn't real, and none of them have ever offered objections that can be taken seriously. It's a waste of everybody's time, because for the science to be so glaringly wrong at a global consensus level, one requires the kind of conspiracy that the CT forum exists to accommodate. I've been following the science for 25 years now, and not only is it the case that there just isn't a counter-argument that holds water, but the time for treating it as an interesting debating topic requiring no practical action until everybody's convinced has long since passed by.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Not going to push the issue but it it would at least ensure all points of view were put on the table at the get-go and therefore need be considered What happens after that is up to the local mod / cmod collective brain.
Have to agree with nesf again there. The majority won't say anything, most likely, which leaves the thread as an open mike for those who want the forum to be something other than what it's supposed to be. The posters involved on this thread - who would likely be the most vocal in such a thread also - cannot by any stretch be described as 'forum regulars', although I appreciate that Chloe Pink hasn't apparently ever posted outside it, despite her opinion of the moderation.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 21207
If you post it they will come.. or something like that. I took a punt on that very thing shortly after being appointed an Airsoft mod in the mist of an uprising an it paid off. I offered the power back to the community on how they wanted things to happen and we came to a compromise - that's all I'm suggesting here.Have to agree with nesf again there. The majority won't say anything, most likely, which leaves the thread as an open mike for those who want the forum to be something other than what it's supposed to be. The posters involved on this thread - who would likely be the most vocal in such a thread also - cannot by any stretch be described as 'forum regulars', although I appreciate that Chloe Pink hasn't apparently ever posted outside it, despite her opinion of the moderation.
cordially,
Scofflaw 0 -
If you post it they will come.. or something like that. I took a punt on that very thing shortly after being appointed an Airsoft mod in the mist of an uprising an it paid off. I offered the power back to the community on how they wanted things to happen and we came to a compromise - that's all I'm suggesting here.
I dare say Airsoft is less adversarial by nature than something like Green Issues. It'd be a bit like having that experiment (and it's a good one) in Airsoft if there happened to be a very large and very vocal group of anti-Airsofters frequenting the forum.0 -
-
Airsoft is not without it's issues nesf but I'll concede that point. I was merely trying to suggest a way forward.
Oh I know you are and I very much appreciate your input, I'm just sceptical of its use in this kind of scenario and I'm very well aware that Airsoft can be a rough forum to mod it's just more similar to why Politics is a rough forum to mod than S&EI from my understanding.0 -
If you post it they will come.. or something like that. I took a punt on that very thing shortly after being appointed an Airsoft mod in the mist of an uprising an it paid off. I offered the power back to the community on how they wanted things to happen and we came to a compromise - that's all I'm suggesting here.
Sure - it's something I'd be generally in favour of, but I'd say that a big point here is whether there is such a general issue on which to build a consensus, or whether there's an issue with a few specific posters or a specific agenda. Everything I've seen here says the latter - even to the way that the previous such thread went.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I've decided I like you.
And it was regular rants like that, that got you banned. Thank you for confirming the decision.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
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.
I note the first post you reference is stripped of some of it's context, and in reading the full body of the thread he did in fact engage in discussion.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:
Also this really stuck out at me:.
Well that’s not how this forum works, particularly in threads prefixed with “Science” – if you make a claim/point, you have to back it up if challenged to do so.
It seems silly to me, if this is the correct implication, to have 4 different sets of rules for the 4 different prefixes setup for the forum. The standard of burden of proof should be the same throughout the forum.
Politics differs greatly though in that you are allowed and welcome to epouse different beliefs: Libertarianism, Liberalism, Conservatism, etc. - but from what I've read of S&EI you can [currently] only be Pro or Anti Green Policy, and a subscriber of Global Warming Theory.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.
By me actuallyPersonally, 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.
but good to hear
You might have missed my earlier post about that, but some studies are concerned that it's not the noise in our range of hearing that we need to be worried about: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73667353&postcount=42 basically there are several claims around the globe that subsonic soundwaves are making people irritable, insomniac, and nauseous among other things. This could easily be true when considering natural frequencies and resonance.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.
This is an apt analogy, especially considering most of the low frequency sounds generated by the wind turbine blades are going to have particularly long wavelengths.Chloe Pink wrote: »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
I don't remember who said that here, but I like it.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.
+1Taking science in the moment seriously is good, taking it extremely seriously is not. Those who understand the science but mistrust the consensus on the edges drive science forward.
But as a Bomb Threat; not Gospel.A scientific consensus that we're facing a major environmental change (and all the knock-on effects of such a change) as a result of our activities is something to take extremely seriously.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
By me actually but good to hear
Ah, thanks for clarifying.
My problem with this issue is that the negative impacts of other forms of generation are already well established and much worse than just making people irritable, insomniac and nauseous. Coal miners are killed on a regular basis, oil spills destroy entire communities, carbon monoxide from cars cause headaches, other forms of pollution cause cancer, bronchitis and asthma, particulates, dioxins etc etc.You might have missed my earlier post about that, but some studies are concerned that it's not the noise in our range of hearing that we need to be worried about: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73667353&postcount=42 basically there are several claims around the globe that subsonic soundwaves are making people irritable, insomniac, and nauseous among other things. This could easily be true when considering natural frequencies and resonance.
If we're genuinely worried about the health impacts of energy generation, we should shut down all fossil fuel generation as quickly as possible, even just for the non-ghg impacts on health. But our current energy system means most negative impacts happen to people in other countries or to future generations and so I find concerns about the health impacts of wind a little hard to take as seriously.
Secondly, most turbines in the future will be offshore and far away from people's homes so while I'm all for continuing research into the possible health impacts of wind turbines, I don't see this as a valid argument against the pursuit of wind power, which is how it's often used.
Not really. A bomb threat suggests that there is something avoidable about the impacts but the effects of climate change are already being felt and there is scientific consensus that action needs to be taken both on stabilizing emissions to prevent future effects and adaptation for the changes that we can't avoid.+1But as a Bomb Threat; not Gospel.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement