Global Warming & Climate Change Policy

[Saul]

If there is no possible reason for censorship in science, then why does the peer-review and publication process exist? Why don't all papers get published?

How do you justify the assumption that since one paper was unambiguous, they all are?

How much time have you spent here addressing the topic?

I don't think we had to close this topic either, but I agree with the action based on the history of the subject here and various staff limitations. How much do you know about the history of the subject here? Have you been privy to the six years of staff debates, many of which were heated to say the least.

How many hours a week should the staff be required to spend debunking crackpots?

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.

Scientific journals are a forum where data and logic is used to support scientific positions. Peer review is not subjective. Scientific journal do not require censorship and bans.

Science changes based on data and logical. Science does not start with a conclusion and adjust the data to support the conclusion.

Censorship and data manipulation becomes necessary when data and analysis no longer supports a position.

When there is obvious unambiguous peer review data and analysis that disproves a hypothesis, banning the discuss of the data and analysis in PF will not change the truth of the data or the analysis.

I come to the forum when there is new data and analysis to discuss in a scientific manner. When the discuss is complete I let the thread move down.

Bans and censorship seem to me to be irrational.

 

[Astronuc]

Scientific journals are a forum where data and logic is used to support scientific positions. Peer review is not subjective. Scientific journal do not require censorship and bans.

Science changes based on data and logical. Science does not start with a conclusion and adjust the data to support the conclusion.

Censorship and data manipulation becomes necessary when data and analysis no longer supports a position.

When there is obvious unambiguous peer review data and analysis that disproves a hypothesis, banning the discuss of the data and analysis in PF will not change the truth of the data or the analysis.

I come to the forum when there is new data and analysis to discuss in a scientific manner. When the discuss is complete I let the thread move down.

Bans and censorship seem to me to be irrational.

We are not censoring the discussion of CC/AGW. We simply took the step to suspend discussion of CC/AGW pending a plan and system to more 'effectively' moderate the discussions.

As for peer review - in theory it is supposed to done objectively - but scientists are human, and I've seen some sloppy stuff accepted in published peer-reviewed journals, and stuff that should not have been published.

Thanks for the feedback, and we are working on a resolution.

 

[chemisttree]

...How many hours a week should the staff be required to spend debunking crackpots? PF is a volunteer effort and people have real lives as well. Do you intend to pay us for our time? ...

...IMO, The first law of PF is to do no harm. If a topic cannot be properly managed then it is best to avoid it entirely.

Absolutely correct, Ivan. Why continue the worst part of the disagreement with this thread? Isn't it about time to lockey, lockey?

 

[DaveC426913]

Absolutely correct, Ivan. Why continue the worst part of the disagreement with this thread? Isn't it about time to lockey, lockey?

You mean lock this thread? Why? It's not like it's unmanageable. Mentors aren't stepping in and deleting posts or warning members or anything.

 

[sylas]

You mean lock this thread? Why? It's not like it's unmanageable. Mentors aren't stepping in and deleting posts or warning members or anything.

Agree (although there was actually a bit of mentor intervention just now with deletion of half a post and a reminder of topic).

I was very encouraged by Astronuc's post -- while being careful not to read too much into it. I'm not a part of those discussions.

I'm not in a mad rush to fix up everything here to my own satisfaction right now. Although the closure was disappointing, I'm still a happy camper with all the other discussions going on. Physicsforums manages science discussions as well as anywhere I have ever seen, and if it takes a bit of time to staff together on managing this particular hot topic, then I expect it will be worth the wait. Heck, PF was already the best managed climate discussion on the net even given the problems staff were having with it!

I like it that there is still this corner where members can speak up about the policy, and how this topic might be managed in the future. It's not exactly a democracy here, but I'm sure the thoughts of members will be considered! So having a place to comment is a goodness.

I expect we'll need reminders from time to time that this thread is not actually debating climate science itself, which should not be a big deal, I think.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for peer review - in theory it is supposed to done objectively - but scientists are human, and I've seen some sloppy stuff accepted in published peer-reviewed journals, and stuff that should not have been published.

However, as Zapper often points out, it is a minimum standard, not the end of the discussion. It is a primary [censorship] filter.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bans and censorship seem to me to be irrational.

I don't know if we will ever open the topic or not. Based on the history, frankly, I would probably prefer that we don't. But this is not a matter of censorship. It is a matter of defining the scope of the forum and recognizing the limitations of a volunteer effort.

Often, the first comment from new mentors is that they are amazed by the amount of work that goes on behind the scenes. It takes a lot of work to ensure that PF's high standards are maintained.

 

[sylas]

I don't know if we will ever open the topic or not. Based on the history, frankly, I would probably prefer that we don't. But this is not a matter of censorship. It is a matter of defining the scope of the forum and recognizing the limitations of a volunteer effort.

Often, the first comment from new mentors is that they are amazed by the amount of work that goes on behind the scenes. It takes a lot of work to ensure that PF's high standards are maintained.

PF is an excellent forum, but one of my general concerns is that there doesn't seem to be much transparency. This may be a consequence of mentors being overloaded, I don't know.

We've heard a lot here about "history" of the discussion and everything that goes on behind the scenes, and I appreciate this is important. But it means that we really don't know what is going on. My own view is that management of discussion on climate was working really well. Cristo disagreed strongly, in [post=2529322]msg #96[/post]. But the only reason given is that it MUST have been working badly or the topic wouldn't have been closed.

I'm left making all kinds of guesses as to what goes on behind the scenes with the mentors, and just a hint of feeling that there's some kind of closing of the ranks of the mentors to avoid having the internal disputes leaking out into the forums. I can understand that but I am not at all sure that it's healthy.

I've look at bit at the history as it appears for people in the main forum. And as I said back in [post=2528830]msg #90[/post], I think the situation appears to have improved a lot over the last year.

I am left with a very bad feeling about this whole thing -- that the real problem is not merely managing the discussion but divisions as to where discussion should go. And that no-one really wants to talk about that. If we were serious about dealing with the actual science on its merits, then we'd have no problems accepting two things

• There's a heck of a lot of open questions in climate science, and that's okay. Active fields of science -- including many others we discuss here -- include all kinds of open questions.
• There's a heck of a lot of basic foundational work solidly established. And in particular there's no credible doubt any more of a strong human impact on climate. Quantifying it and projecting all the follow-on effects and fitting in all the other interactions going on is full of questions still.

It seems to me that a lot of the debate gets polarized into AGW or not-AGW, which is a really superficial decomposition of the issues and no guide at all to what's going on with the science here. If the mentors are internally being sidelined into that "debate", then you've got a really serious problem going on.

Climate is one of the really big scientific issues of the day and the foundations of it are solidly grounded in physics. Thermodynamics, fluid flow, radiation transfers, latent heat, etc, etc. There are certainly impacts from other fields of science, like ecology or biology to sort out aspects of the carbon cycle, or everything that goes on in paleoclimate, but that's truly not where the big scientific questions are and it's not where the big public disputes are either.

So what the heck is the problem? I don't get it. If there IS a dispute between the mentors as to answers, can that be made into an asset? I think the solution is simple (see also my [post=2531034]msg #129[/post]), and I honestly have not heard any credible objection to it.

We should stick to the guidelines. If it is published, then we can discuss it.

We DON'T need mentors who are so expert that they can take any peer reviewed reference and tell if it is "right" or "wrong". The point made by several people that peer review is only beginning of scientific examination of a proposal is spot on. So we need to be relaxed, and allow that there are different ideas explored in science, and not insist that discussions all resolve in the direction we'd like.

As I have said previously, I suspect a lot of the problem here would be managed better if we accepted it is not the job of mentors to decide which one of two published ideas should be legitimate. Science thrives on conflicting ideas, and if published they can be used in the forums; and you don't need to be a climate scientist to manage that.

There's another potential problem. Some mentors might be objecting to the idea that certain contributors are confident of certain points. Perhaps some mentors don't like it that Andre is so sure AGW is incorrect, or that sylas is so sure carbon dioxide has such a powerful impact, or that Saul is so sure of his perspective on paleoclimate (which I won't risk summarizing in case I misrepresent). And so on.

You guys need to relax about that too. Please. All kinds of scientists out there have strong confidence in various propositions; and people who have made a reasonable study of a topic are going to be the same. In principle, every scientific question always remains open to question; in practice some things get discovered and we don't qualify them at every turn. And there are some disagreements as to what is well founded and what isn't; and some of that disagreement is reasonable and some unreasonable.

Let it go. If someone can explain a perspective with proper reference to where that perspective is expressed in the scientific literature, then it is a part of the mainstream scientific debate and something we should be able to explore in physicsforums.

I honestly don't see the problem you are having, and I am finding the explanations of the problems don't help. At this point, I am not buying the idea that only mentors can understand what is involved with managing this debate. I've bean a moderator at other forums also, where we've had a heck of a lot of work involved. I know that. It doesn't answer the questions.

I'm only guessing at the real difficulties here so my suggestions may be missing the boat. But for what it is worth.

1. Stick the existing guidelines. Adequate references need to be given for controversial claims.
2. Emphasize thread topic. Topic drift is a problem when people want to turn every debate to their own pet notion.
3. Stick to science. Claims about "motive" or "funding" or "bias" are not for the science forum.
4. Don't even think in terms of AGW vs not-AGW. The issues in science are measuring sensitivity, signs of cloud impact, quantifying carbon cycle, quantifying the energy fluxes, resolving atmospheric temperature profiles, etc, etc, etc. There's all kinds of impacts involved, and the human impact is certainly one of them. Some papers will look at human impacts, others will look at other impacts. This usually isn't even a conflict, just two different aspects of the whole area climate science research.
5. Don't worry if mentors disagree on what answers should be on some questions. Scientists do the same, and resolving that is completely different from managing the discussion.

I am not buying the notion that this is all too hard.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I only have a moment to post right now but I wanted to give a quick response.

The staff does not make decisions about which side of the debate is correct. That is not our job. It is our job to ensure that rigorous standards are maintained to the greatest extent possible.

Look, taming the internet [our little corner of it] has been no small challenge. I would ask that you show a little faith in the people who helped to take this forum from a homework project, to what it is today.

 

[sylas]

Look, taming the internet [our little corner of it] has been no small challenge. I would ask that you show a little faith in the people who helped to take this forum from a homework project, to what it is today.

I do, I think! But its not an absolute faith.

I disagree with this decision, frankly, though I am supporting it as a faithful and happy member of the community who wants to work constructively with the group. I presume disagreeing with the decision is not the same as "lack of faith".

My problem here is that there seems to be a little too much being taken on faith, sometimes. I like the forum. I think you do a terrific job. You've made this one of the best places on the net for managing science discussions, and in fact you had even made it one of the best on the net for climate related discussion as well, IMO.

Even so, PF isn't perfect. And it's really unclear to me what the problem here really is. And I continue to be dubious of the proposition that this matter is just too hard or too much work. I think it can be solved and that it is worth solving. I don't mind if that takes a bit of time. I have felt in the dark sometimes about several things in physicsforums. I'm happy to hear that mentors are continuing to consider the problem and I am really unsure of how best to help with that. Just saying nothing at all and letting you all work it out with no input from members or SAs doesn't really seem appropriate, and I don't mean that as distrust or lack of faith!

I can promise to abide by your decisions, even when I disagree with them. I'll continue to be active in the forums where it is permitted. There's a lot of great stuff here and I am not a one-topic contributor. My understanding of this thread is that it is here so that members can expresses feedback on the policy. Some of that might be critical feedback, but that isn't disloyalty.

I'm a fan, honestly. Cheers -- sylas

 

[DanP]

Look, taming the internet [our little corner of it] has been no small challenge. I would ask that you show a little faith in the people who helped to take this forum from a homework project, to what it is today.

Incontestably, you did an awesome job with this forum. It is one of the best science corners on internet. Surely, we all do have "faith", the mere existence of this forum is proof that you do a great job managing it.

However I have to say that I too consider several threads where closed without any real reason, and I would say even arbitrary. You have to consider that conflict and strong disagreement are natural, and occur on all levels. Ranging from a internet corner to the top levels in science , politics, you name it. Faith doesn't mean blind and unquestioned agreement with all the actions of the mentors.

My personal view is that you don't have to "manage" threads. An "unmanageable" thread shouldn't be closed unless it drastically violates the forum rules. Which was not the case with many threads, they where closed under subjective interpretation that "It did run it's course" or "It can't bring anything more useful for anyone".

Which is false. If a thread does not bring any benefit whatsoever for anyone, it will simply die. Ppl will stop posting sooner or later, the only real indicator it had run it's course.

That being said, this is akin to your home, not mine. You make the rules. We will follow (or at least try to follow with to the best of personal ability) them because it's civilized to follow the rules of the lord of the castle when you are on his property. But in the end being civilized and following the rules when you are here (and leaving civilized if you don't agree to follow) doesn't mean agreement to all the decision took.

I think you should look at Sylas's post as an attempt to make this place better. It's really not a case of "faith" banning an entire science subject is very similar to the actions the church took to block science which disagreed with it;s views.

 

[Gokul43201]

Incontestably, you did an awesome job with this forum. It is one of the best science corners on internet. Surely, we all do have "faith", the mere existence of this forum is proof that you do a great job managing it.

However I have to say that I too consider several threads where closed without any real reason, and I would say even arbitrary. You have to consider that conflict and strong disagreement are natural, and occur on all levels. Ranging from a internet corner to the top levels in science , politics, you name it. Faith doesn't mean blind and unquestioned agreement with all the actions of the mentors.

My personal view is that you don't have to "manage" threads. An "unmanageable" thread shouldn't be closed unless it drastically violates the forum rules. Which was not the case with many threads, they where closed under subjective interpretation that "It did run it's course" or "It can't bring anything more useful for anyone".

Which is false. If a thread does not bring any benefit whatsoever for anyone, it will simply die. Ppl will stop posting sooner or later, the only real indicator it had run it's course.

That being said, this is akin to your home, not mine. You make the rules. We will follow (or at least try to follow with to the best of personal ability) them because it's civilized to follow the rules of the lord of the castle when you are on his property. But in the end being civilized and following the rules when you are here (and leaving civilized if you don't agree to follow) doesn't mean agreement to all the decision took.

I think you should look at Sylas's post as an attempt to make this place better. It's really not a case of "faith" banning an entire science subject is very similar to the actions the church took to block science which disagreed with it;s views.

While I agree with a lot of what you say here, I can't disagree more with that last sentence (or last sentence fragment, as written). Saying "this entire subject is beyond the scope of our expertise" is nothing like the Church banning specific ideas it disagrees with.

 

[mheslep]

...My personal view is that you don't have to "manage" threads. An "unmanageable" thread shouldn't be closed unless it drastically violates the forum rules. Which was not the case with many threads, they where closed under subjective interpretation that "It did run it's course" or "It can't bring anything more useful for anyone".

If a thread does not bring any benefit whatsoever for anyone, it will simply die. Ppl will stop posting sooner or later, the only real indicator it had run it's course. ...

From casual observation of the internet at large or even the odd untended thread in PF that assertion is trivially false. Instead, when there is no restraint, there always remains a non-zero benefit to the trolls to keep at it, so the noise level of inane and irrelevant posts rises exponentially, lowering the expectation of civil discussion in the next discussion.

 

[sylas]

From casual observation of the internet at large or even the odd untended thread in PF that assertion is trivially false. Instead, when there is no restraint, there always remains a non-zero benefit to the trolls to keep at it, so the noise level of inane and irrelevant posts rises exponentially, lowering the expectation of civil discussion in the next discussion.

Yes. It's nice to have the vote of support from DanP, but in fact I think the tight management is one of the big advantages of physicsforums. Many folks do prefer less restriction, and there are other forums which provide that. I'm personally in favour of "censorship", if we can call it that, in line with the existing guidelines.

 

[DanP]

From casual observation of the internet at large or even the odd untended thread in PF that assertion is trivially false. Instead, when there is no restraint, there always remains a non-zero benefit to the trolls to keep at it, so the noise level of inane and irrelevant posts rises exponentially, lowering the expectation of civil discussion in the next discussion.

This stance is one of the things you simply can't dismiss as "trivially false". It's a policy thing.
Hence you will always find ppl in both camps.

It boils down to whatever you prefer tight big brother control and involvement in everything for a "greater cause", or simply believe that involvement of powers to be should be always marginal.

While I agree with a lot of what you say here, I can't disagree more with that last sentence (or last sentence fragment, as written). Saying "this entire subject is beyond the scope of our expertise" is nothing like the Church banning specific ideas it disagrees with.

It's not saying "this entire subject is beyond the scope of our expertise" the problem, it's the total ban on the subject. In the end, it's not so much what you want to express with the ban, but what ppl will perceive from it.

The lack of expertise shouldn't be something to hold ppl back. Actually a moderator can keep the discussion civilized if necessary, without being an expert in climate. Bringing an "expert" would not change much of the issue. Who would you bring in ? A GW guy ? So he can close any thread discussion AGW ? An AGW one ? both an GW and AGW one , so they can slice their throats open in the process of moderation ?

Banning an entire science subject from discussion is very much a disappointing decision. Its never the solution to anything.

Maybe you guys should consider making Sylas a moderator for GW/AGW. Of course, if he would like to help you with it. The man is extremely articulate, balanced, more objective than many persons I seen posting here , always helpful and respectful to the others, and with a pretty vast knowledge in the area. And yes, he is here and now, not an elusive "expert" you might or not find.

He is your man. Court him :P

 

[vanesch]

Who would you bring in ? A GW guy ? So he can close any thread discussion AGW ? An AGW one ? both an GW and AGW one , so they can slice their throats open in the process of moderation ?

You've got it. A lot of difficulty for something that is not our "core business" where we are good at.

 

[DanP]

You've got it. A lot of difficulty for something that is not our "core business" where we are good at.

So stick to maintaining a civilized discussion. And as I said, you have Sylas who in my opinion is the best to do this job. I trust his abilities to make this work.

 

[sylas]

You've got it. A lot of difficulty for something that is not our "core business" where we are good at.

So what was the problem with sticking with the existing guideline and requiring peer reviewed references?

PS. This is a lot more than merely "civility"! It does take extra work, but I don't see the need for a great deal of domain knowledge. Some; yes. Mostly an appreciation of what valid references look like... which isn't that hard for someone with expertise in other areas of physics.

 

[ZapperZ]

So what was the problem with sticking with the existing guideline and requiring peer reviewed references?

One of the "tricks" that crackpots do in the physics forums is to cite published work, or even standard textbook physics, and then "bastardize" it into ways that can't be recognized. One common example that keeps popping up into existence is the claim that evolution is impossible due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Now, I'm sure you'll agree that Thermo's 2nd law is well-established and so, if we look at it naively, such claim should be allowed since, after all, it us using a valid foundation. But this is STILL not a valid discussion on PF because it is a complete misuse of valid physics. One can ASK about the validity of such use, but simply cannot use this point to shore up other arguments about evolution, because the premise is totally false.

I've brought up this example because it requires someone with knowledge of physics to be able to cut off the use of such references. It perpetuates the error, and people who google on it WILL find it on PF as a "source" of such information, often without reading any other rebuttals. Now, I've brought up one obvious example here, but it is not uncommon for someone to cite either valid physics or peer-reviewed work and used it in ways that it wasn't supposed to. I've lost count how many people used phenomena ranging from superconductivity to tunneling to photoemission as "references" without even understanding the physics. It takes someone who actually knows the physics to be able to detect such errors and misinformation. And handing out such misinformation IS an infraction here on PF.

So yes, while we would require valid sources as we've defined them, we can't just stop there and naively expect that the signal-to-noise ratio will take care of itself. If this is true, then we won't require anyone with any expertise in any subject to be Mentors of this forum. Is this something you and everyone else on here would prefer? It takes an intimate knowledge of that subject area to understand the numerous subtleties that are often the crucial part in making a conclusion, even if it is based on a published work. To think that we can work on automatic pilot just because we have a set of rules, and think that things will work out is extremely naive, and frankly, rather insulting for those of us who have to apply our knowledge everyday to sort things out here in this forum.

Zz.

 

[DanP]

It takes an intimate knowledge of that subject area to understand the numerous subtleties that are often the crucial part in making a conclusion, even if it is based on a published work. To think that we can work on automatic pilot just because we have a set of rules, and think that things will work out is extremely naive, and frankly, rather insulting for those of us who have to apply our knowledge everyday to sort things out here in this forum.

Zz.

It's regrettable that you feel insulted, but unfortunately I can't change that. Everybody has his prides and prejudices. It is in a way (read: totally) your problem if you feel insulted if somebody doesn't agree with your views.

Besides, I guess we all know what "crackpots" like to do, its not like any of us was born yesterday. I feel that too much is blamed on crackpots and serve as an excuse, and that you really give them too much attention. Who cares about them ?The issue is that I didnt wanted to blindly change the status quo on this ban. I offered you a potential solution: Sylas. It is up to him if he wants to invest time in this, and up to you guys if you trust him able to manage thos issues as I do. He is every-bit as knowledgeable as most of you mentors are, IMO. He can do it. Period.

 

[ZapperZ]

It's regrettable that you feel insulted, but unfortunately I can't change that. Everybody has his prides and prejudices. It is in a way (read: totally) your problem if you feel insulted if somebody doesn't agree with your views.

Obviously, you didn't understand what I wrote.

I've developed a thick-enough skin on here to feel "insulted" just because someone disagree with me. In fact, it would silly for me to expect everyone to agree with me. If you read carefully what I wrote, this was NOT what I felt insulted about. And I don't think repeating what I said already in this post would have made it any clearer.

Zz.

 

[DanP]

Obviously, you didn't understand what I wrote.

I beg to differ. And for whatever you felt insulted, my statement stands. There is nothing personal here having to do with you.

 

[sylas]

One of the "tricks" that crackpots do in the physics forums is to cite published work, or even standard textbook physics, and then "bastardize" it into ways that can't be recognized. One common example that keeps popping up into existence is the claim that evolution is impossible due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

This is quite true. But was it actually major problem in climate discussions at physicsforums over recent times? I don't think so. Sure, some people were making ridiculous posts -- as happens also in cosmology and relativity and other forums. But the really crackpot stuff was also getting properly corrected in the discussion, for the most part; with interesting discussions proceeding on more subtle questions.

There has been a bit of an issue sometimes with people quoting a reference in support of some argument, when in fact the reference itself does not actually make the same claim being argued. That happens a bit, particularly in paleoclimate topics; and it was mostly being picked up. It doesn't always need a mentor -- the report button can help here.

Perhaps I should have reported more myself; but I've been a little wary of that, frankly. I don't think it will hurt to take a break and get a more clearly worked out set of guidelines for this topic; but I do certainly think there is plenty of scope to get guidelines that can work, not to make discussion perfect, but to keep it mostly focused on learning about what is going on in the mainstream scientific world; the world of real scientists who are doing research and publishing their ideas.

That is worth doing, in my opinion, and it can be done. I don't know how many threads were being reported. If every thread gets reported by the resident cranks, then it will put a huge strain on mentors. But I've not heard that this was the problem.

I've brought up this example because it requires someone with knowledge of physics to be able to cut off the use of such references. It perpetuates the error, and people who google on it WILL find it on PF as a "source" of such information, often without reading any other rebuttals. Now, I've brought up one obvious example here, but it is not uncommon for someone to cite either valid physics or peer-reviewed work and used it in ways that it wasn't supposed to. I've lost count how many people used phenomena ranging from superconductivity to tunneling to photoemission as "references" without even understanding the physics. It takes someone who actually knows the physics to be able to detect such errors and misinformation. And handing out such misinformation IS an infraction here on PF.

So yes, while we would require valid sources as we've defined them, we can't just stop there and naively expect that the signal-to-noise ratio will take care of itself. If this is true, then we won't require anyone with any expertise in any subject to be Mentors of this forum. Is this something you and everyone else on here would prefer? It takes an intimate knowledge of that subject area to understand the numerous subtleties that are often the crucial part in making a conclusion, even if it is based on a published work. To think that we can work on automatic pilot just because we have a set of rules, and think that things will work out is extremely naive, and frankly, rather insulting for those of us who have to apply our knowledge everyday to sort things out here in this forum.

If I can make a brief side comment... I frankly object to the notion that anything I have said is insulting.

This is a feedback thread. I'm pleased that Greg has made this available for members to comment, and it is not disloyal, or unfaithful, or insulting, to make proposals for how to manage this topic. Please don't take suggestions personally, or take constructive suggestions as saying that it is all easy and you could do it on autopilot.

I have not implied any such thing, ever. I HAVE said -- and I CONTINUE to say -- that you don't actually need deep domain knowledge to manage most of the problem. What I mean by that is it will be sufficient to have the kind of experience and knowledge and background of science and physics that is available with the mentors. I am not saying any old person could do this effectively, nor have I ever belittled the expertise in science that you and other staff bring to the forum.

I have objected to the notion that the solution is to find a professional climate scientist to solve the problems -- which some folks have suggested. I agree this would be wonderful to have at the forum as a resource. But it is not, IMO, the foundation for a solution to managing discussion. You don't need that depth of expertise to identify the outright cranks, and you don't want to just depend on one person.

I am working hard here at trying to understand the issues and make constructive suggestions. I've been active in this topic and mostly appreciated, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of what was being discussed in this area, and where it was well founded and where not so well founded. I continue to think that you as a group WERE managing this topic remarkably well, and that it would be possible to tighten it up a bit in ways I have proposed.

I personally think climate science -- particularly climate in the immediate present -- is mostly physics, and it is one of the most interesting and active areas of applied physics in modern science today, and one were there is a great interest in people learning more about the relevant science. I think that was actually happening here, until the topic was closed. Not everybody is interested in this topic, of course. But there's enough interest and educational value and certainly enough physics to make it worth trying to find a way to manage the discussion.

I believe that climate discussions WERE working quite well. I really don't know what was going on with mentors, but the discussions in the forum were mostly going well and there was enough of the unsupported claims being filtered out to raise the level significantly above what you see in most other forums.

I can see ways the discussion could be improved, and have made some suggestions.

Claims being argued need to be claims also argued in the literature

Sticking to the requirement for published work is going to weed out most of the worst problems. This simple guideline was not being enforced as well as it could have been; but well enough to help.

As for wild claims with spurious support... I agree it is not enough just to check that every post has a reference. But most of the problem is gone if you insist that the claim itself is one made in the references. It's not acceptable to support a controversial claim with a personal argument based on a line of evidence from published work. You have to show that the claim you are arguing for is repeated in the reference.

Hence, for example, saying that evolution is inconsistent with the second law would require an actual credible reference that says evolution is inconsistent with the second law -- NOT a paper about the second law which is then applied to evolution to make a new claim. A good general knowledge of physics and of how science works generally is mostly enough to identify such cases.

A small number of extreme claims can be identified in advance as invalid

There are a couple of claims that should be a red flag that something weird is going on. I've proposed some examples several times in the thread; here it is again, from [post=2526440]msg #64[/post].

• Temperatures are increasing over recent decades, with a total gain of roughly 0.7 C since the start of the twentieth century. Even if people question the importance of this, the actual change itself is real and significant. Variant proposals for the accuracy of the measurement are fine... IF they are published.
• The greenhouse effect is real. The atmosphere does interact with thermal radiation and this does result in a much warmer surface temperature than would exist otherwise. This is elementary physics, well over a century old. The net effect, about 33 degrees, is not in credible dispute. It is perfectly okay to question how the magnitude of this could change, if it is from properly published references. Denial of the effect altogether is pseusdoscience.
• Atmospheric carbon dioxide has a significant effect; a forcing of about 5.35 W/m² per natural log of atmospheric concentration. Claims for "saturation" of CO₂, for example, are misunderstanding of basic physics, and not permissible.
• Humans have a significant effect on carbon dioxide levels. The 30% increase in atmospheric levels since the start of the industrial revolution, and the measured increase in the present, is being driven by human activities.

This list would be enough to prune most of the really crankish stuff, leaving open the harder questions where there is still legitimate published work in support of minority views. The main advantage of an explicit list like this is not to allow a rank novice to be a good moderator. The real advantage is clarity for members and consistency for mentors.

We don't need to dismiss as cranks every disagreement with the majority. There's scope to look at alternative ideas on sensitivity, on the magnitudes of other less well understood forcings, on the rate of heat flow in the ocean, on the carbon cycle, on a host of open questions.

We don't have to be perfect. As long as most of the nonsense gets stopped, you have a valuable educational opportunity in an active area of applied physics with wide public interest and relevance. And that is something worth working on.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[ZapperZ]

This is quite true. But was it actually major problem in climate discussions at physicsforums over recent times? I don't think so. Sure, some people were making ridiculous posts -- as happens also in cosmology and relativity and other forums. But the really crackpot stuff was also getting properly corrected in the discussion, for the most part; with interesting discussions proceeding on more subtle questions.

There has been a bit of an issue sometimes with people quoting a reference in support of some argument, when in fact the reference itself does not actually make the same claim being argued. That happens a bit, particularly in paleoclimate topics; and it was mostly being picked up. It doesn't always need a mentor -- the report button can help here.

But who do you believe here if you were a mentor who isn't an expert on the issue being discussed, and you have one member making such-and-such claim based on a paper, and another member claiming the contrary? I brought up one very obvious example in which it is clear what is being bastardized, but in most cases, the issues are NOT that obvious! I have had to deal with people objecting to very subtle issues in which, if I were not familiar at all with the details of the subject, I wouldn't have been able to judge who's doing what to whom! In many of these calls, they do require an expertise, and not simply a bot to do a check of some citation index!

Again, we have a physics section of this forum that not only run like a well-oiled machine, but also has the ability to keep the noise level down. This cannot be attributed simply because all we do is nothing more than check references. This short-change all the hard work at the Mentors have to do. Instead, the various expertise we have in many areas of physics are often called into play in the running of these physics sub-forums. It isn't just blind routine check-the-references-and-you-are-done task. It was never, and has never, been like that. To think that simply doing that will make the Earth forum move as well is underestimating what it takes to run it.

Zz.

 

[DanP]

But who do you believe here if you were a mentor who isn't an expert on the issue being discussed, and you have one member making such-and-such claim based on a paper, and another member claiming the contrary? I brought up one very obvious example in which it is clear what is being bastardized, but in most cases, the issues are NOT that obvious! I have had to deal with people objecting to very subtle issues in which, if I were not familiar at all with the details of the subject, I wouldn't have been able to judge who's doing what to whom! In many of these calls, they do require an expertise, and not simply a bot to do a check of some citation index!

True experts on Climate are probably a handful in this world at the time being. But all this talk is circling around like a dog after it's tail. Some ppl claiming that you have to be "an expert" to understand 10th grade thermodynamics , others presenting other points of view. It doesn't focus on the problem. The Earth does move, it doesn't need our permission.

I provided you with a potential solution, pointing you a potential mentor from the persons who proved a reasonable level of expertise, and who I am confident can do the job.

What I want to know is what mentors think about such a solution. I ask this directly now, so it doesn't get ignored.

Tbh, we all heard about the arguments of why the subject was banned, but I am less interested in discussions over this, but in finding a solution which would work, and does not mean a ban of discussing of science.

 

[DanP]

But who do you believe here if you were a mentor who isn't an expert on the issue being discussed, and you have one member making such-and-such claim based on a paper, and another member claiming the contrary?

Who says you have to believe anyone ? Appealing to "authority" and "expert" is a logical fallacy. I won't automatically trust anyone on a internet forum. Trust is gained in a long process of proving, not because you have a "expert" title or a PhD or whatever. Those are mere indications that the solutions offered by those humans are more likely to be correct than others. But it's still internet.

 

[ZapperZ]

Who says you have to believe anyone ? Appealing to "authority" and "expert" is a logical fallacy. I won't automatically trust anyone on a internet forum. Trust is gained in a long process of proving, not because you have a "expert" title or a PhD or whatever. Those are mere indications that the solutions offered by those humans are more likely to be correct than others. But it's still internet.

1. You appeal to the expertise of "authorities" all the time, unless you also claim to be an expert in semiconductor physics, general relativity, condensed matter physics, medicine, etc.

2. None of us who are Mentors here got to our position simply because of some silly title.

3. You continue to pick around my post without understanding and addressing the point that I made. I asked "who do you believe" in an example of such a case where one objected to the accurate use of a reference. This happens more often than you think! You simply criticized that question without addressing what one would do in such a case without any kind of knowledge in that area. Would you, for example, be able to decipher the objection of someone who, say, disagree with the use of the reference of Lanzara et al. Nature 412, 510 (2001) as the definitive evidence of phonons as the glue for high-Tc superconductivity?

Let me repeat this: It is NOT uncommon for someone to cite a published work, but use it in an erroneous manner! But one has to KNOW that it is used in such a manner, and if all we have is simply someone reporting it, then who decides which is right? The first person who cited it, or the one reporting it as a misinformation? A "bot", which is what you seem to think all that the Mentors are, will check the reference and certify that it is a valid source. Case closed?

Zz.

 

[DanP]

Let me repeat this: It is NOT uncommon for someone to cite a published work, but use it in an erroneous manner! But one has to KNOW that it is used in such a manner, and if all we have is simply someone reporting it, then who decides which is right? The first person who cited it, or the one reporting it as a misinformation? A "bot", which is what you seem to think all that the Mentors are, will check the reference and certify that it is a valid source. Case closed?

Zz.

I don't really appeal to any experts on internet. I don't take medical advice on internet. I don't take legal counseling on internet. I don't "appeal' to internet experts in general. In real world, I always ask for a second opinion in medical situations. I take legal advice from companies with which I had a long relation built over the years. When I need to learna new skill I shope for different instructors until I find one which suits my perosnal goals. Generally, "expert" title doesn't impress me. It's results which do impress me.

You continue to pick around my post without understanding and addressing the point that I made..

Let me congratulate you for your unique insights in what I understand and what I dont.
It's not like your ideas and personal feelings are not very transparent, but let me tell you again: I don't have to agree with your feelings and ideeas. I consider them flawed.

Why do you have the impression that you are the only one on this board who can read ? Why do you have the impression that you are the only one who seen in his life a peer reviewed reference misquoted or used in a erroneous manner ?
Why do you feel the need to repeat those things ?
Why are you so sensitive and take things on a deep personal level that you have to put words in ppl mouth or insinuate they consider mentors "bots" ?As I said, I am more interested in finding a solution which does not put a ban on science, then petty bickering and repeating same things.

 

[sylas]

But who do you believe here if you were a mentor who isn't an expert on the issue being discussed, and you have one member making such-and-such claim based on a paper, and another member claiming the contrary?

Since DanP has mentioned it so explicitly, and since you also ask what I would do as a mentor myself, let me just say that this is a tad awkward.

I don't think physicsforums should rely on anyone person.

To be honest, I am pretty confident of my own background on this topic, sufficient to recognize in advance most of the claims people might be making with respect to climate in the present (and many of the claims with respect to paleoclimate in the past, though this is not my main interest). I know many of the names on all sides of people who are publishing. Because the contrarian or minority authors are comparatively limited, I'm particularly likely to recognize them. Because I like to understand the issues on their own merits, I am also well acquainted with many of the authors for conventional climate views, and I have a large collection of several hundred papers that I've used trying to sort out different matters. The fact I am not a professional doesn't prohibit this. But then I have had an interest in this topic for some time.

I don't want to overstate this. I don't recognize all the topics within climate science, of course, and I am still learning more about the details of the various topics, as a learning amateur.

I am very happy to be a part of this forum and as a (still quite new) science advisor I already have a bit of additional standing, even if rather nominal. There's no additional power to enforce anything, of course. I'm also aware that physicsforums deliberately aims to keep a fairly small mentor teams; with new mentors as replacements as people retire.

We should also remember -- it is the members who contribute most of the discussion and in many cases they are going to help a lot in sorting out issues. With basic content and referencing guidelines in place, the cranks are already at a severe disadvantage.

Managing a content dispute

So, on your specific example, what should be done when two members argue conflicting views, and mentors can't immediately recognize one of them as nonsense?

Even professional experts have a particular focus of research interest. ANY finite team of mentors is going to come up against specific issues that are new from time to time. Even in a case where three mentors happen to know that area well, what do you do when they happen to be away for a week? What does the team do about this argument between two members?

(1) If one member is making unsupported claims, then they can be advised that a reference is required. This much is fairly easy.

(2) If both members are claiming that the same paper is arguing different things, then you have a somewhat unusual situation. It will happen occasionally, and it may take a bit of checking, but usually you can identify who is distorting the reference, especially if you have a good general background in science.

(3) If two members are using different references that make mutually inconsistent claims... then there's not a problem. Mainstream science really does involve conflicting ideas and debate. The main thing to watch in this case is simply civility. A well grounded discussion on an open question can be very useful and interesting, and it is a part of good education in science to understand such differences. Physicsforums is all about helping students and interested members improve their understanding of mainstream science, and that legitimately includes understanding the differences on open questions.

(4) If two members are looking at the same paper, and one says it is correct, and the other says it is incorrect, then you have a difficult case. The onus is on the one claiming a paper is incorrect. If they can give a reference presenting the conflicting view, then you are back to case (3) above. If they cannot, then they need to be really specific in dealing with the paper they wish to refute on its own merits.

Sometimes, under case (4), you will have a case where a paper is junk. This does happen, from time to time, and I think we should live with that. I can give a couple of examples from the threads in 2009, several in climate and a couple in other areas as well. We should not rely on the mentors alone to identify all cases where a published paper is junk.

Science isn't perfect, and there are mistaken ideas that change. Some of the things in physics that we think we know, will very likely be substantially different in twenty years. Scientists are well used to working with uncertainty and the possibility of being wrong. We should be more relaxed about that here as well; it is in my own opinion a more serious failure of the physicsforum ideal of fostering education and learning of modern physics to have an important topic cut off at the knees than to have a possibility that sometimes some things will be said that turn out to be incorrect, without having been adequately challenged at the time.

I brought up one very obvious example in which it is clear what is being bastardized, but in most cases, the issues are NOT that obvious! I have had to deal with people objecting to very subtle issues in which, if I were not familiar at all with the details of the subject, I wouldn't have been able to judge who's doing what to whom! In many of these calls, they do require an expertise, and not simply a bot to do a check of some citation index!

I've never said a bot with a citation index is enough -- though many of the worst problems can get resolved pretty quickly with little more than this.

In cases that are not obvious, you have to allow that some questions really are open questions. You mentioned back in [post=2530911]msg #126[/post] a tricky case... the example of Schon. The lesson from this example is that we must not demand of mentors that they are perfectly able to identify in advance every case of fraud, or junk science.

Again, we have a physics section of this forum that not only run like a well-oiled machine, but also has the ability to keep the noise level down. This cannot be attributed simply because all we do is nothing more than check references. This short-change all the hard work at the Mentors have to do. Instead, the various expertise we have in many areas of physics are often called into play in the running of these physics sub-forums. It isn't just blind routine check-the-references-and-you-are-done task. It was never, and has never, been like that. To think that simply doing that will make the Earth forum move as well is underestimating what it takes to run it.

I don't think that is all it takes.

But I DO definitely think that having a tighter set of guidelines for managing the discussion will give a workable result, given the current set of smart and knowledgeable mentors we have, AND a core of substantive contributors as members. I do not accept that I am underestimating what it takes. I've been involved in contentious science discussions for many years, on a range of topics and in a range of roles. Perhaps we disagree on this, but I don't think you should take offense at my suggestions for managing discussions.

It is not reasonable to take suggestions about useful guidelines for managing discussion as a claim that any bot could apply them, or that guidelines alone make everything perfect. It takes much more than just a set of guidelines to run a quality discussion; but the guidelines are still are very important framework, no matter how expert the mentors. They give transparency and consistency to how discussions are managed.

I base this all very much on the fact that climate discussions HAVE been going well. People have been learning, discussions have been substantive, and much of the really nonsensical stuff that gets posted has been exposed pretty effectively. You never actually convince a really determined contrarian; but people wanting to learn about the issues have been doing so.

I know that mentors have been divided on the matter. The specifics of those divisions are probably quite a touchy subject. If I'm right about this, then having a clear set of guidelines that everyone can accept will be essential.

I've given several specific guidelines that I think can tighten things up, and I fully expect that ANY set of guidelines will need a small and well informed team of mentors to carry on, and that (like science itself) nothing will ever be perfect. I continue to hope that this topic will be opened up again at some point, and that it will be useful to have some strong guidelines such as I have proposed to help manage it.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[ZapperZ]

Why do you have the impression that you are the only one on this board who can read ? Why do you have the impression that you are the only one who seen in his life a peer reviewed reference misquoted or used in a erroneous manner ?
Why do you feel the need to repeat those things ?
Why are you so sensitive and take things on a deep personal level that you have to put words in ppl mouth or insinuate they consider mentors "bots" ?

Because you continue to misrepresent what I wrote. And yes, following your disagreement, I highly disagree that you've read my post clearly. You did not address the scenario that I've suggested, which was what I presented to sylas. Instead, you thought I was insulted because people (you?) disagree with me? Puhleeze!

Honestly, at this point, and as I've mentioned earlier, I really don't care about the Earth forum anymore. It has taxed our effort way too much when considering that it is such a small part of PF. People have made wholesale judgment about PF and the Mentors simply based on what has happened in that forum, while ignoring all the good stuff that has been done elsewhere. And that's why it matters to me personally because I've put in considerable effort and time into this forum that no one should be surprised if I'm unhappy that one small forum is somehow tainting the rest of it.

There HAS to be an unmoderated, free-of-authority Global Warming forum SOMEWHERE on the 'net!

Zz.

 

[DanP]

Because you continue to misrepresent what I wrote. And yes, following your disagreement, I highly disagree that you've read my post clearly. You did not address the scenario that I've suggested, which was what I presented to sylas. Instead, you thought I was insulted because people (you?) disagree with me? Puhleeze!

...and think that things will work out is extremely naive, and frankly, rather insulting for those of us who have to apply our knowledge everyday to sort things out here in this forum...

You said it with your own mouth. Anyone who does not consider the problem so insurmountable like you seem to do insults you :P Keep the cool, don't let anything on internet insult you.

You did not address the scenario that I've suggested, which was what I presented to sylas.

I did more than this. I presented you a potential solution during some of my last posts. But you seem to turn a blind side to it.

Honestly, at this point, and as I've mentioned earlier, I really don't care about the Earth forum anymore. .

This sums it all. You finally recognized that you don't care about the subject, and hence I conclude you are not interested in finding any solutions whatsoever and to make things happen. Prolly is more interesting to let the world know that there where cases in which peer reviewed papers has been misused. We all know that already. We heard you :P

 

[ZapperZ]

Since DanP has mentioned it so explicitly, and since you also ask what I would do as a mentor myself, let me just say that this is a tad awkward.

I don't think physicsforums should rely on anyone person.

And luckily, we typically don't in most cases, except for the Earth forum where we rely on, till you showed up, no one consistently.

I don't want to overstate this. I don't recognize all the topics within climate science, of course, and I am still learning more about the details of the various topics, as a learning amateur.

Contrary to what people think, I don't consider an "amateur" as someone who cannot be an expert in this particular area. This is because I've seen enough examples of people from different backgrounds going into climate issues and learning things on their own. At no point in this discussion did I equate someone having a relevant degree in climate science as being the only possible "experts".

I am very happy to be a part of this forum and as a (still quite new) science advisor I already have a bit of additional standing, even if rather nominal. There's no additional power to enforce anything, of course. I'm also aware that physicsforums deliberately aims to keep a fairly small mentor teams; with new mentors as replacements as people retire.

As far as I'm aware of, there are no strict number quota (Greg can correct me if I'm wrong). It is strictly on a as-needed basis.

(2) If both members are claiming that the same paper is arguing different things, then you have a somewhat unusual situation. It will happen occasionally, and it may take a bit of checking, but usually you can identify who is distorting the reference, especially if you have a good general background in science.

This, I'm not so sure. In fact, I think it will be more difficult to investigate when it's related to GW than, say, physics, considering that GW covers such a vast expanse ranging from statistical methodology all the way to physics/chemistry of CO2 and other chemicals. I just finished reading last week's issue of Nature that contained the article "The Real Holes in Climate Science", and I find the scope of coverage of the issues involved to be extremely daunting! I would be utterly amazed if someone has a good grasp of every single issue covered in that article.

(3) If two members are using different references that make mutually inconsistent claims... then there's not a problem. Mainstream science really does involve conflicting ideas and debate. The main thing to watch in this case is simply civility. A well grounded discussion on an open question can be very useful and interesting, and it is a part of good education in science to understand such differences. Physicsforums is all about helping students and interested members improve their understanding of mainstream science, and that legitimately includes understanding the differences on open questions.

This really isn't the issue, and strangely enough, from my experience in the physics forums, this doesn't occur that often. Discussion among knowledgeable people and disagreeing on the same set of observations is common in science. It's a differnt matter when it is on a forum like this. Your point here is made with the a priori assumption that you actually can understand the content of the discussion and that no one is pulling a fast one. This is exactly my point!

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

This sums it all. You finally recognized that you don't care about the subject,

More evidence that you didn't read what I wrote. I said that I didn't care about ".. the Earth FORUM"! I didn't say that I didn't care about the subject. And this isn't new. I've said this WAY in the beginning already in this thread.

and hence I conclude you are not interested in finding any solutions whatsoever and to make things happen. Prolly is more interesting to let the world know that there where cases in which peer reviewed papers has been misused. We all know that already. We heard you :P

You are wrong here, especially when it is based on a faulty assumption. I've been involved in the discussion on the running of the Earth forum till several months ago when it got out of hand. That in itself falsify your conclusion definitely.

Zz.

 

[DanP]

More evidence that you didn't read what I wrote. I said that I didn't care about ".. the Earth FORUM"! I didn't say that I didn't care about the subject. And this isn't new. I've said this WAY in the beginning already in this thread.
You are wrong here, especially when it is based on a faulty assumption. I've been involved in the discussion on the running of the Earth forum till several months ago when it got out of hand. That in itself falsify your conclusion definitely.

Zz.

It doesn't falsify anything, you said it with your own mouth. You continue on the same tone as me, no news here, and turn a blind side at possible solutions.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't really appeal to any experts on internet. I don't take medical advice on internet. I don't take legal counseling on internet. I don't "appeal' to internet experts in general. In real world, I always ask for a second opinion in medical situations. I take legal advice from companies with which I had a long relation built over the years. When I need to learna new skill I shope for different instructors until I find one which suits my perosnal goals. Generally, "expert" title doesn't impress me. It's results which do impress me.

You are misunderstanding what "appeal to expert" means. Unless you personally have actually gone to the Arctic and measured glacial retreat, or at the very least, have, in your hands the raw data and are an expert in the science - then you have no choice but to appeal to experts.

You can say you examine the evidence and draw your own conclusions, sure, but if asked to back up your claims, you will ultimately refer to some expert's work, even if indirectly.

To pretend to not appeal to an expert is tantamount to saying your opinion is completely unfounded.