- #71
Count Iblis
- 1,863
- 8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement" , so why can't physicsforums?
Last edited by a moderator:
D H said:Wikipedia's moderation in this regard has become quite suspect. Wikipedia is a good, and sometimes excellent, source for non-controversial, mainstream science topics. Things start going downhill in areas where the science is not fully developed or where science, politics, and religion interact.
D H said:Wikipedia's moderation in this regard has become quite suspect. Wikipedia is a good, and sometimes excellent, source for non-controversial, mainstream science topics. Things start going downhill in areas where the science is not fully developed or where science, politics, and religion interact.
Mark24 said:Who decides if the person responding to an inquiry is an expert or not? You? This sounds like an appeal to authority, and science should not be subject to that. Science should be able to stand on its own based upon the evidence. IMO, this attitude demonstrates the whole problem with the AGW debate, and it has been exemplified by the arrogance shown by climate researches in the hacked e-mails toward people who voice any degree of skepticism.
This is the reason for the heatedness and circular nature of the arguments imo. Basic understandings of matter and gravity are not yet complete and watertight. The climate models don't marry-up with the weather models. Only when the climate models can reproduce the Arctic oscillation data can you say that they are properly validated imo. It's a fun topic which anyone can participate in with around a years intense interest and study of scientific papers..Shame to miss it.sylas said:At the same time, I think this topic is deeply rooted in basic physics,.
aspergers@40 said:This is the reason for the heatedness and circular nature of the arguments imo. Basic understandings of matter and gravity are not yet complete and watertight. The climate models don't marry-up with the weather models. Only when the climate models can reproduce the Arctic oscillation data can you say that they are properly validated imo. It's a fun topic which anyone can participate in with around a years intense interest and study of scientific papers..Shame to miss it.
I'm making a completely different point, in support of the same final conclusion. I am saying that climate science is rooted in basic physics that we do understand very well indeed. But our differences on that are not the point here. The question is how should our discussion be managed.aspergers@40 said:This is the reason for the heatedness and circular nature of the arguments imo. Basic understandings of matter and gravity are not yet complete and watertight. The climate models don't marry-up with the weather models. Only when the climate models can reproduce the Arctic oscillation data can you say that they are properly validated imo. It's a fun topic which anyone can participate in with around a years intense interest and study of scientific papers..Shame to miss it.
ZapperZ said:The National Research Council, an arm of the Academy of Science, commissioned in 2006 the http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676" of all the published work related to climate change. I challenge anyone here to point to a more comprehensive review than that.
Andre said:For the wikipedia moderation on climate issues, it may be revealing just to google 'wikipedia climate moderation' to judge whether or not it might be biased.
sylas said:ZapperZ, we probably broadly agree on how to approach this issue, but you are mistaken.
That NAS report is a very useful resource, but it is very tightly focused on one narrow little part of climate change; the inference of historical changes by proxy data from the last two thousand years. It does not consider the big issues of what is causing the recent increase or the physics involved in causes of climate change, or a host of other matters. It's about measuring one little aspect of climate change (temperature only) and then only over one limited span of time and without any more than passing reference to causes. It's a careful look at one tiny part of climate science.
We all want a place for the discussion. That's for sure. All the members appeared to be managing themselves rather well on both sides of the debate I thought. Everything was going okay as far as I was concerned..sylas said:Gentlefolks, we aren't meant to be debating the climate matter here. The question before us is rather: do we want to have a place for this discussion, and if so, under what general principles can it be managed?
Cheers -- sylas
ZapperZ said:The NAS report had a very narrow and specific target - to look at ALL the published data and see if there is any trend in global temperatures. It wasn't a review of "the whole field". I've looked, and in terms of a comprehensive and meticulous collection of evidence on this very matter, I haven't seen any better. Have you?
NAS reports tend to go for specifics issues, because if not, it would be too cumbersome of a study since they tend to do this meticulously. For people who still question if there really is a "global warming" (and we all know there are plenty out there), one would think that this collection of evidence would be something one would pay attention to.
The difference between NAS studies, and IPCC is that the NAS has a very prestigious and respected track record. People often bashed the IPCC as been "political". It is difficult to do the same type of bashing to NAS based on what they have produced so far for all their studies through the NRC.
The whole debacle and confusion with AGW is that, one has to fight so many different battles. There are those who deny that the Earth is in a warming trend. So you have to fight that. There are those who say that yes, there is a warming trend, but it's part of a natural cycle. So now you have to fight AND those who said there's no warming. And then there's those who claim that there is a warming trend, and that an anthropic cause isn't the source. Etc...etc. The NAS study is meant to address the first issue. Until that can be well-established, it is difficult, and one can even argue that it is moot, to fight the other battles.
I'd rephrase the first part of this.
Science is frustrating. There are more variables than scientists and more questions than answers.
... except that I don't find it frustrating. I *like* living in a complex world with a depth of detail that leaves no apparent end to the questions and no easy path to answers. Science is fun, and difficult, and worthwhile, and makes progress with no apparent end point.
Why single out climate? What about cosmology, or anthropology, or medicine, or a host of other examples we could mention? I don't think there is anything particularly different about climate that makes it in a class of its own. Each field of science has its particular problems. If they didn't science would be much easier -- and more boring.
aspergers@40 said:We all want a place for the discussion. That's for sure. All the members appeared to be managing themselves rather well on both sides of the debate I thought. Everything was going okay as far as I was concerned..
Skyhunter said:I wholly agree.
This was the only place on the web where the two sides actually engage in constructive dialogue.
ZapperZ said:You have been shielded from all the posts that were deleted, and all the hate mail that we got. It does look pristine and nice on the surface, doesn't it?
sylas said:Yes, it really has been working pretty well for users of the forum -- and since Greg has allowed for regular users to comment, I think we should allow that their perspective matters. I appreciate that there have been problems behind the scenes.
For regular members of the forum, the situation in these discussions has improved considerably over the last year, with an influx of contributors who really do have a good level of familiarity with the state of science in climate, and who have given some good high quality engagement. By high quality, I mean actually using proper references, as is expected, and actually explaining what those references are doing rather than just spinning them to some amateur perspective or trying to undermine them as a way of reforming the practice of science.
- Xnn stated posting just over a year ago, and has quickly become a great asset.
- I stated on this subforum in May, and have been appreciated as a useful contributor by readers of all perspectives.
- joelupchurch joined in May, and has done a great job in sticking with substance and valid references.
- chriscolose joined in May, and is a strong contender for the single most technically competent PF contributor in climate science; very strong on actually working with the literature and with working scientists, and with explaining underlying technical and physical theories. (But unfortunately does not have a great number of posts.)
I'm sure I missing others; and I note that I am not considering longer term contributors. It's not enough to be well read in a substantial amount of background literature and theory; it is also important HOW people engage. The above are examples of people who have been mostly an asset in that regard as well -- though none of us is perfect, of course.
The other thing that has happened is a new stronger policy, which was intended to deal with the problem that mentors are not able to judge quickly whether a proposition expressed in a post is grounded in the practice of science or is an ungrounded misunderstanding. The principle is simple; controversial claims must be supported from the literature.
One of the major problems is that this policy has not been applied consistently. It has definitely helped, and it would help more if applied more. I've said a number of times that having a genuine working climate science on hand would be very useful, but that I am quite sure this is not really your biggest problem. Don't get me wrong -- it would be very nice to have. But it is far more important to have a set of understood and consistently applied guidelines, which will STILL need to be stronger than in other forums, simply because of the heat this topic can generate.
If you guys actually let hate mail stand in your way of giving a good education resource on a hot topic of science, that's appalling. But I think there is a lot more to it than this.
Furthermore, I do know it has been very hard on mentors, and I support the idea of taking a break. But I think that
it is legitimate to hope that the ban might be temporary and that some solution might eventually be tried and the topic reopened. People who don't have an interest in it should not be impacted by this; everyone has their favourite topics to engage.
- given that the forum HAS been working pretty well
- given that the topic IS one of considerable interest and importance (even if you disagree with AGW completely it remains important because of policy implications)
- given that there are a substantial number of members and staff who would in principle like to find a way to manage the topic better
Cheers -- sylas
Evo said:Chris Colose [...who...] runs that blog?
It's online and a quick google on him brought that up, although you and I discussed him some time ago as not being someone that we can consider as having any sufficient background, which is why I am rather surprised to see what you posted.sylas said:Yes, that is correct.
I am sure he won't mind this being clear; but let's be careful about physicsforums expectations for privacy. If he has not given that information himself then we should be cautious about identifying him so clearly. He has linked to his blog as part of his contact information, and uses his real name, so I don't think it matters in this case; but I am just concerned about the principle here. Ad hominem attacks and worse are a problem in such a charged topic and this is a legitimate reason for anyone to prefer not to have their personal details too open.
Chris is a student of this subject, not a professional. He's a very good one, IMO.
Cheers -- sylas
Evo said:It's online and a quick google on him brought that up, although you and I discussed him some time ago as not being someone that we can consider as having any sufficient background.
Evo said:We are looking for actual climate scientists, not just people that enjoy it as a hobby.
You do know there's an in between, right? I'm like 10th author for a paper on a program to do online statistical analysis on satellite products (like climate data sets), and I'm a student. I get paid for working on random satellite data, lately climate models, so technically this stuff is my job. Does that count? I do know the answer is no, but what's the real criteria? Is getting a phd the criteria? Getting published? What if it'll be part of my dissertation?Evo said:We are looking for actual climate scientists, not just people that enjoy it as a hobby.
sylas said:Furthermore, I do know it has been very hard on mentors, and I support the idea of taking a break. But I think that
it is legitimate to hope that the ban might be temporary and that some solution might eventually be tried and the topic reopened.
- given that the forum HAS been working pretty well
- given that the topic IS one of considerable interest and importance (even if you disagree with AGW completely it remains important because of policy implications)
- given that there are a substantial number of members and staff who would in principle like to find a way to manage the topic better
story645 said:I stayed away from the Earth forum 'cause I'm more interested in the data than the debate, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss someone out of hand just 'cause they're a student.
sylas said:Yes, it really has been working pretty well for users of the forum -- and since Greg has allowed for regular users to comment, I think we should allow that their perspective matters. I appreciate that there have been problems behind the scenes.
For regular members of the forum, the situation in these discussions has improved considerably over the last year, with an influx of contributors who really do have a good level of familiarity with the state of science in climate, and who have given some good high quality engagement. By high quality, I mean actually using proper references, as is expected, and actually explaining what those references are doing rather than just spinning them to some amateur perspective or trying to undermine them as a way of reforming the practice of science.
Note, we are talking about somebody having the know-how to moderate disputes that happen in the CC/GW threads, and to do so without the moderators on the whole spending a disproportionate amount of time on them. This is different than being knowledgeable enough to contribute worthy and thoughtful posts at our forums.story645 said:You do know there's an in between, right? I'm like 10th author for a paper on a program to do online statistical analysis on satellite products (like climate data sets), and I'm a student. I get paid for working on random satellite data, lately climate models, so technically this stuff is my job. Does that count? I do know the answer is no, but what's the real criteria? Is getting a phd the criteria? Getting published? What if it'll be part of my dissertation?
I stayed away from the Earth forum 'cause I'm more interested in the data than the debate, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss someone out of hand just 'cause they're a student. Sylas probably knows my pet data set as well as I do; I just have the benefit of getting stuff vetted by a working climatologist.
In this whole debate, people have missed another really good way to get good background on a topic like this. Learn it! This is done in the usual way, over a number of years, by reading books and studying theory. There are many courses in climate science offered at colleges and universities, and many textbooks available to help people get to grips with this level of background.
The fundamental problem here is a deep distrust of much that is taken for granted in university courses and in the literature. That will not be fixed by getting a professional to join in. The professionals are already being vilified and distrusted.
Don't get me wrong; I'd love to have a couple of working professionals join in. But I don't believe that is the biggest problem here at all. Many of the really heated disputes are over questions that are actually really wrong headed and have no scientific support. We'd manage an awful lot of that just by sticking to the existing guideline better.
Count Iblis said:Sylas:
I agree 100% with this. This distrust exists at the level of the moderators here and that fact probably led to this problem. I find it suspect that this happened not so long after Sylas came along here. He was able to debunk most of the nonsense that most of the time went unchallenged before. In case of the hacking incident, just read all the discussions and you'll see that it is mostly Sylas who debunks most of the myths about data being destroyed etc. etc.
So, objectively, you would have to say that things improved a lot lately. The problem therefore really is that you have moderators who hold strong sceptical opinions on this matter who do don't like this development. One lesson from Wikipedia is that people who are involved in a discussion should not moderate that discussion. People who hold strong opinions who are not directly involved should be able to put their opinions aside when moderating a discussion and only apply the rules.
ZapperZ said:So you now think that you're able to draw up such definitive conclusion about the opinion of the Moderators on this very topic? And can I then draw up the conclusion that you use the SAME set of logic when you participate in the various discussions? If you do, then I have a very important news for you: YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!. If I were you, I would seriously reconsider how I arrive at any set of information that I consider to be valid.
If you have such distrust of the moderators of this forum, I am shocked that you are still hanging around here.
Zz.
Count Iblis said:Well, Evo has been very clear about her opinion. And Redbelly presumably knows what he talks about in this posting:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2523470&postcount=32
I have made my opinion about some problems with moderation on PhysicsForums clear a long time ago, long before I was aware of any trouble on the Earth Forum. it is not really that "the Moderators are bad", just that the system has some inherent flaws. I also noticed at then time that giving feedback about this was not appreciated.
ZapperZ said:So you got 2 moderators who have opinions (surprise!) on this matter, and you think that ALL of us are in the same boat? And you see NOTHING wrong with that faulty logic? And you don't see this as being the reason why trying to discuss certain things with you can often lead to a colossal waste of time?
Zz.
Put another way, and briefly, the Mentors are tired of arguing amongst themselves without reaching consensus on how to moderate numerous CC/GW threads. That is the simple reality of the situation.