New GW/CC Policy

Greg Bernhardt

PF is announcing its regrettable decision to ban all topics of global warming and climate change indefinitely. At this time we are unable to effectively moderate on the issue of climate change and global warming. We hope this ban will be temporary as we search for experts in the proper fields to assist us.

This ban will go into effect Monday Jan 11th. Members who are currently involved in global warming and or climate change threads, have until then to wrap up discussions. On Monday such threads will be locked.

Please note this is an issue the staff has been working on for the past couple of years and we do not take this action lightly. We have explored and tried many solutions. This was our last resort.

I will leave this thread open for comments and suggestions. However please note this policy is not open for debate.

Skyhunter

An Earth sciences forum that bans all topics related to global warming/climate change???

Here is a question...what part of Earth sciences is not related to global warming/climate change?

This is the only Earth sciences forum (to my knowledge) that has meaningful discussions of the published literature. The combination of members, moderators and guidelines have created a good environment for learning and discussion.

The Earth's climate is changing as the planet warms. These are scientific observations, facts.

If the best intermediate science forum on the internet cannot cope with the discussion of how these facts are interpreted by the scientific community... what does that say about our ability to cope with the physical reality!

Physics does not dither and gravity always wins.

lisab

One thing I liked about the old policy was that it presumed that PFers are adults, capable of hearing both sides of an issue without becoming 'tainted'. After all, who's afraid of a little data?

I understand this has been a hot debate among the mentors, whom I admire and respect, but I have to admit I'm disappointed in this decision.

Evo

What makes us the best is the fact that we have actual scientists working in the respective fields for the forums they moderate.

Unfortunately, we have no climate scientists at this time.

Discussions of geology, seismology, vulcanism, plate techtonics, oceanography, etc...can still be discussed as long as people stick to discussing the subject itself.

Astronuc

Actually, so are we. This action wasn't taken lightly, but after careful consideration and much thought and discussion.

hypatia

We will weather this one as best we can.

Gad

... I agree with Lisab

humanino

Can we still talk about local warming ?

story645

Can we discuss the data (NCEP, ERA-40, etc.) from a "I'm working with X, having problems, help!" point of view?

CRGreathouse

I'm just glad I posted my Popper thread in time!

Astronuc

Wear a kilt! That's why the Scots invented it.

sylas

I don't like this decision, but I'm working with it for the moment. It is a mentor decision, and I've not been part of that discussion.

I will say one thing...

I don't believe this is actually the problem, and have said so previously. After all, we don't have a vulcanoligist on staff either.

The real problem is that too many people just don't trust what the scientists say. I appreciate I have not been part of mentor discussions, but even so.... I think trying to address the matter by finding a single authority figure won't work well.

We get all kinds of strange assertions about scientists who are opposed to the mainstream of climate science; but in fact all actual working climate scientists, including those who have definite differences with the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion (Lindezen, Spencer, Christy, Svensmark, Douglass, etc), still do not have the same level of extreme skepticism of the fundamentals that pervades public discussion. It is not necessary to be a professional to follow this.

It has been really hard to try and give clear accessible accounts of even very uncontroversial basics, in response to a widespread level of skepticism that (in my opinion) merely debases the normal understanding of legitimate scientific skepticism. Skepticism is a good thing. A lot of what is called skepticism is better seen as credulous naivety. But how can you help people past that without causing offense?

This DOES make it very hard for the mentors, I acknowledge. But in my view the problem has been much worse than it needs to be; and having a working climate scientist to moderate discussions would not be at all well received by the people who are raising much of the ruckus. They don't trust climate scientists now.

Given the problem mentors have had finding a workable solution, I am for the time being content with this decision. I am hopeful this may be a break from what has been disruptive, rather than a final and complete finish to this topic; but we'll have to see. For the time being, the decision is to close debate, and I accept that.

At the same time, I think this topic is deeply rooted in basic physics, and there is a wide spread desire of many people to get a better educational introduction to the issues. It ought to be something physicsforums could help with; but it may be no bad thing to stop for a bit and take stock.

I think there is a wide spread desire by many forum members to have a way to continue to talk about this topic. Given this, I'm hoping the mentors will continue to be open to looking at ways to manage the debate, even though for the time being they are apparently burned out with it. I'll be continuing to try and work towards a way of handing this difficult topic, while submitting to the decision of the mentors for this new policy at the present time.

Ideally, I would like to keep a forum where we can discuss the open questions which are raised within the body of working scientists, which does include ideas at some variance with the majority view. Science has always had this tolerance of minority views and dissent, as long as they continue to work within the normal scientific process. Some views are merely silly, and it would be nice to avoid distraction from the extremes. Some views are legitimate minority alternatives, and still science in good standing.

The main task of physicsforums is education in the process of science, as it is practiced. Obviously, physicsforums will continue to provide that service, in all kinds of fields. This one topic has presented difficulties, and I gather no-one really likes what it has come to.

Cheers -- sylas

mheslep

This new poster to Earth, Mauri S. Pelto, claims to have published and peer reviewed other articles.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...2&postcount=31
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...6&postcount=24
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...3&postcount=10

Reference checks out:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=5462548

Google scholar search shows numerous publications under that name - glaciology concentration.

Evo

We don't have to, it's not a highly charged, overly emotional topic that is being hotly debated. If a member had a question, it would be fairly easy to find an answer or refer them to sources of information.

Not to mention that my niece is a planetary geophysicist and could answer any questions or send them to the right paper if needed.

sylas

Professor Pelto is very new to the forums. Let's not overload the poor guy with expectations! I sent him a welcome PM myself a little while ago, and it would have been great to have him on board earlier, particularly in discussions of glaciers. He teaches a unit on "global warming", which looks great; designed to help students "to critically read global warming material and an ability to search, analyze and report key information".

Cheers -- sylas

sylas

Exactly. That is, the problem is the emotions and heat of debate, not the access to good information.

There would be no problem at all doing for climate what we can do for vulcanology; we don't need professional expertise to identify and refer people to good sources of information.

The problem is that the sources of information themselves are disputed... and of course the same would apply for the authors of the available information sources: that is, for the climate scientists. This is why having a climate scientist is not the main problem.

The problem is the emotions and the heat of debate, and also the refusal to admit the authority of good information and sources already available from climate scientists.

Cheers -- sylas

Evo

The problem is that there are two equally legitimate camps within climate science. Some people choose one explanation, some choose another.

Greg has made a good decision on this and I fully aqree with it.